Search the Community

https://twitter.com/Herald_Editor/status/535213375333359618/photo/1

Haven't seen the segment myself but apparently Drew Roberton of the RSAssociation has been on Sky Sports News saying he's prepared to give Ashley the benefit of the doubt. Doesn't seem to fit with recent UoF statements?

The old man shuffled in the large leather chair, one of those traditional ones designed to encourage good seating posture rather than slouching, pushing his steel rimmed glasses onto his forehead he took what he hoped would be another sip of inspiration from the lukewarm tea on the table, just for a brief moment he thought about undoing his top shirt button and loosening his tie to provide relief from the late afternoon sun beaming through the office window and which was taking its toll – but that would just not do, “standards, standards, standards” he muttered to himself, the presentation was tomorrow and the speech had to be finished, so reaching for his trusty pencil and notepad he collected his thoughts and began scribbling… “I have been lucky — lucky in those who were around me from the boardroom to the dressing-room. In time of stress, their unstinted support, unbroken devotion to our club and calmness in adversity eased the task of making Rangers FC the premier club in this country. To be a Ranger is to sense the sacred trust of upholding all that such a name means in this shrine of football. They must be true in their conception of what the Ibrox tradition seeks from them. No true Ranger has ever failed in the tradition set him.” Our very success, gained you will agree by skill, will draw more people than ever to see it. And that will benefit many more clubs than Rangers. Let the others come after us. We welcome the chase. It is healthy for us. We will never hide from it. Never fear, inevitably we shall have our years of failure, and when they arrive, we must reveal tolerance and sanity. No matter the days of anxiety that come our way, we shall emerge stronger because of the trials to be overcome. That has been the philosophy of the Rangers since the days of the gallant pioneers.” I have spent my whole life in awe of that speech. The utter selflessness at the heart of it, the appreciation and acknowledgement of the work and dedication of others, the dismissal of the importance of the individual and the emphasis and focus on the dedication of others around him merely serve to underline why this man has left such an indelible stamp on our club. It speaks of a football club with a sense of direction, where the people at the very heart of it share not only a common vision but realise the necessity of working together with shared values to deliver that vision. We have fallen, fallen a long way from that sacred trust, taken there by men with little concept of what the Ibrox tradition seeks from them, men whose importance of self, of ego, was the very antithesis of everything Mr Struth stood for. It has opened a revolving door of charlatans, of profiteers, with no interest in preserving the shrine other than seeking to exploit the faithful who still come to worship. In these days of anxiety, amidst the clamour of boardroom battles, of money men and PR gurus, of percentage shareholdings and damaging headlines, one group, to the exclusion of all others, has sought to uphold that sacred trust and remain true to the concept of the Ibrox tradition. Disengaged and disempowered from the powers and processes which govern our club, and in the face of considerable, or as some hoped, insurmountable adversity, we have strived and endeavoured to keep the flames of that sacred trust burning. We conquered the insurmountable, breaking attendance records along the way, we laid waste to the false accusations of “glory hunters” at the Gayfields and Station Parks of this world. Borough Briggs and Ochilview had to be postponed as the manifestation of “unstinted support” and “unbroken devotion” descended upon them. Who are these people ? Go look in the mirror you will see them there, staring right back at you – we are the people. We are the people and this is our time. It’s time for those who have proven themselves in the face of adversity to no longer be disempowered or disengaged. We are the rightful sentinels of that sacred trust, do we honestly believe that anyone else could protect it better ? If you do then stop reading now. Rangers First, Buy Rangers and Vanguard Bears all offer a means of achieving that goal via their various fan ownership models. The choices we face are simple but critical nonetheless. Who do we trust most to decide the destiny of our football club, to safeguard all that we cherish and value ? To run the club in a way which upholds the traditions spoken of by Mr Struth all those years ago ? Who would ensure that every single decision which is made, is done so solely in the best interests of Rangers ? Or should we continue to fracture as a support, tearing ourselves apart doing the bidding of masters who offer no guarantees, in the hope of some scraps off the table ? Isn’t it about time we either sat at that table ourselves or had a considerable say in who does and the decisions they make concerning our club ? I am under no illusions – it will not be easy. There will be considerable challenges ahead, without doubt considerable adversity as well, but only a fool would bet against a Rangers support united in purpose and vision – it’s probably what those who wish ill will against our club fear most. Our club is once again in need of “gallant pioneers”, men and women who will remain true to the concept the Ibrox tradition seeks from them, and the reward is ensuring that sacred trust is preserved for generations yet to come. “No true Ranger has ever failed in the tradition set him.”

“If you’re prepared to accept mediocrity because our owners are greedy fair enough. Me, I intend to do everything I can to root them out.” A quote from Gunslinger. So what are we doing as a support to root out the directors? I believe the answer is “Not a lot”. Let’s look at the two lots of people a majority of the fans want rid of – the Shareholders and the Directors. 1. The Shareholders There are 2 main ways that the shareholders can get to go or to lose control: a) Someone buys their shares – there is currently nobody who wants to buy their shares. Dave King has said he won’t do it. There are 2 fans’ vehicles for purchasing shares, both of whom are a long way away from getting enough cash to make a meaningful investment. They also both have the dilemma of raising cash and then deciding whether to use the cash to pay existing shareholders and therefore not a penny goes to the club, as happened recently with BuyRangers, or wait until there’s a share issue at some future point. They also run the risk of their shareholding being diluted. Let’s say they get 1% of the shares and then there’s a rights issue. They could find that their 1% has been reduced to 0.5% or even lower. Perhaps it needs yet another calamity like an administration to change the mindsets of the fans to fan ownership as they have consistently shown that a vast majority are not there yet. b) There’s a share issue of some sort, which dilutes their control in the way mentioned above. However what happens if they are the ones to put in the cash? They could increase their shareholding percentage. Dave King has said that he would be willing to invest, but only under certain circumstances. Are the current shareholders likely to structure an issue that sees them losing control to King? Very unlikely. Is King willing to invest that level of cash and not have a level of control? Very Unlikely. All of King’s actions seem to be aimed towards trying to force the existing shareholders and directors out without him having to spend any cash in doing so. He has built up a degree of animosity between him and the board and as such he has made it less likely that the board will turn round and make it easy for him to get control. The existing shareholders generally want an exit strategy and nobody is offering them one and they aren’t going to effectively have their shareholding become worthless. 2. The Directors Most Rangers fans are not impressed by the current Board, but nobody has offered any alternative since the Paul Murray faction got voted down at the AGM. Nobody has set out any level of vision for the future and King suffers from this criticism more than most. He has not set out detailed plans or any level of alternative. King set up his Ibrox 1972 Ltd company, asking for the club to give it security over its biggest assets. Does anyone seriously expect a quoted PLC to give security of its main assets to a third party company that apparently doesn’t have a season ticket holder or Rangers shareholder on its board or as a shareholder? There is no connection between this company and the club. As it stands, there’s no connection between the ownership and control of Ibrox 1972 Ltd and the support either. It’s almost as if King has come up with a vehicle that makes it impossible for the club to grant security, not that they would do it anyway. Perhaps that’s what King is hoping for? Many fans are not buying season tickets, partly due their opposition to the board and partly due to the fare on the park. For the fans who fall into the former category, is them withholding season ticket cash really going to chase out the directors? I really don’t think so. Why should it? Are the really just going to resign and walk away or are they going to carry on running the company in whatever financial situation it Is in? I would argue that it is the latter and they will continue run the club as best they can, with the lower income and therefore lower quality on the park. Many are there to do a job (presumably to the best of their ability) and less season tickets makes it more challenging but it is not a reason for them to resign from their job. Are the shareholders going to insist on a change of board due to lower season tickets? Unlikely, given that the gave the directors a vote of confidence at the AGM even after the club had spent the £22m from the share issue in 9 months. If they still retain the shareholders’ support after that then season ticket holder revolt isn’t going to make much difference. There is also the situation where Sandy Easdale controls the votes of over 26% of the shares and it means that he only needs 24% of other shares to get his way in most matters. The fans who are not renewing their season tickets have my admiration for the sacrifice that they are making and I understand their frustration as they want to do something and not renewing is something. However it doesn’t mean that what they are doing will result in a change or will make any difference to the positions of the directors. Even if the season ticket boycott did force a change in directors, would it change the overall way that the club is being run? Again, very unlikely. So what is the best hope for a change? We can only hope that Dave King has a change in heart and does decide to buy out the existing shareholders because otherwise I just don’t see a way out of this mess as we fans appear to be powerless against shareholders and directors who have no interest in engaging with the support and taking actions to keep them onside.

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

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 Rangers Supporters Trust (RST) is deeply concerned by the comments attributed to the Arab Trust Chairman Stephen Hughes. Specifically that he feels Dundee United fans would not be safe at the upcoming Scottish Cup semi-final between the two sides. In making this statement, Mr Hughes does not provide any evidence to back up his wildly inaccurate claims. Unfortunately, it would appear that the Arab Trust is actively trying to create additional tension between the clubs and fans ahead of the game. Furthermore, the Arab Trust does have a history of trying to antagonise the Rangers support, having called the club and the support 'huns' on numerous occasions on their official Twitter account. We would like to point out that, in 2011, Rangers were awarded the SPL Family Champions Award at a time when the Dundee United Chairman was on the SPL board. There is also a great deal of irony in Mr Hughes' fanciful claims given that an Arab Trust board member is actively promoting a 'family only' bus travelling to the game. This would appear to be yet another unprovoked attack trying to damage the fantastic reputation of the Rangers support. Recent remarks regarding safety attributed to United chairman, Stephen Thomson are also of concern, and we would expect the Rangers board to be actively seeking clarification in this regard

Meanwhile, Arab Trust board member Mike Barile says that, if Rangers do make the last four, the game should not be played on the Glasgow side's ground. The former chairman of the fans' group said: "I was active in the supporters movement when United and Dundee met in the Scottish Cup semi-final in 1987. "Both clubs were prepared to play the game at Tannadice or Dens Park on the toss of a coin, but the SFA insisted that the game had to be played at a neutral stadium. "Now there is the possibility of playing Rangers and it is okay for the game to be played at Ibrox. "Can you imagine the outcry if the SFA were to say the game was to be played at Tannadice? It is a ridiculous decision. "If it is to be Rangers we are to play then the game should be played at a neutral ground." When Celtic Park was chosen as the venue for the final in October, it was announced that both semi-finals would be played at Ibrox. Hampden Park is unavailable because of redevelopment work taking place to lay track for the Commonwealth Games.

"There has been a fantastic response since launching the campaign at 4pm on Wednesday 5th of March with over 650 Rangers fans committing to RangersFirst. The initial launch has mainly focused on Twitter and Facebook with almost all the traffic coming from both social networks. On average for every 10 visitors to the RangersFirst website a fan signs up. In the next 7-14 days RF plans to launch the RangersFirst Promotional Video which will explain the CIC concept in detail. They are also in the process of setting up a road show team that will visit Supporters Clubs and Rangers affiliated venues across the UK." (For the avoidance of doubt I have inserted quotation marks to make it clear that this is not my wording, I received an email with this text which I have altered only insofar as changing from first to third person.) http://www.rangersfirst.org/

http://news.stv.tv/west-central/256830-rangers-supporters-trust-suspend-spokesperson-over-improper-conduct/

MOTHERWELL chief executive Leeann Dempster fears fans are being driven away from the game by barmy rules. Fir Park's powerbroker spoke out after Well supporters were chucked out of Pittodrie for standing up during Saturday's SPL clash with Aberdeen. The Lanarkshire club have been inundated with complaints from disillusioned supporters in the wake of their 2-1 win. During the match, a number of Well fans were ejected after altercations with stewards. It is understood the problems began due to a small section of the visiting support standing up. Dempster said: "Clubs have guidelines but each club uses its own interpretation. "We are prepared, to an extent, to tolerate some things and we work to engage with the fans. I heard our fans were told not to travel to Aberdeen with any flags or any drums. "A couple of years ago Kilmarnock fans brought a load of inflatables. The stewards waded into the section and took them away and I wondered why. "What is offensive or dangerous about inflatables? It was just a bit of fun and no one else in the ground seemed to mind, yet they were confiscated. "We're asking people to come and pay money. When they've paid we're telling them they can't sing, shout, stand up or dance around. "I fear they might start to ask themselves, Why are we coming? Why am I paying money for this?" Dempster will today investigate the situation with the club's safety officer Alan Marshall and has made it clear she is no way critical of Aberdeen and will not make judgments about the treatment of her team's fans or draw any conclusions about the incidents until she is in possession of all the facts. But she knows the bandwagon for standing areas in SPL stadiums is rolling again and believes that could help the situation. Dempster has discussed the matter with the SPL's Neil Doncaster and understands inconsistency in the upholding of the rules annoys punters. Aberdeen fans contacted radio stations on Saturday night defending the Motherwell fans and claimed Old Firm supporters get away with standing at Pittodrie when others don't. Dempster said: "A couple of years ago, the debate was raised about safe-standing and a few eyes rolled, believing that this situation had already been covered and discussed. "But I think that, as the financial squeeze has come, it's changing again. Fans always ask the question about sitting down and they also get upset by it sometimes. "It's obvious that when you're talking about 4000 or 5000 people it can inflame a situation to wade in there. But that irks the supporters who then ask why they would be put out for standing up. "How are we going to tell our supporters to do something when there are occasions when it doesn't get done by others? "Of course you can't have it happen all round the ground but in certain situations there has to be a judgment call if there is no danger to safety." Dempster is convinced that making the matchday experience as enjoyable as possible for everyone is the way ahead. She said: "We have a great relationship with our supporters. There has been a bit of leeway because we encourage fans to bring their flags and drums and to make some atmosphere. "We have a group of supporters who bring masses of colour to games. "We ask them about how they want to support the team and they say by standing up, by bringing their flags and banners. "There is an understanding that if we tell them to sit down or tell them something is not acceptable they abide by those rules and we work as a group. "We have said that if some of their flags are too big to carry around, we could store them for them. We engage with these guys. "So far nothing untoward has happened and the discussions we're having with them seem to be working. We feel it's the way ahead." Motherwell Supporters Trust board member Joe Smith revealed what he witnessed at Pittodrie. He said: "About 20 of our young fans were targeted by the stewards for standing up after Motherwell scored 10 minutes into the game. "They were told to sit down and I think they did but one of them got up and started singing 'Stand up for the Motherwell' which obviously annoyed the stewards. "Five heavy-handed stewards waded in and dragged the lads out the ground kicking and screaming. It wasn't fair because hundreds of Aberdeen supporters stood up when their team scored and the stewards didn't even blink an eyelid." Daily RHebel

I am making this statement as my final contribution to the debate regarding the Trust Accounts and the AGM, and in so doing, I want to announce publicly my resignation from the Board of Rangers Supporters Trust; notice of which was submitted to the Chair and Acting Secretary a short time ago. I should preface this statement with some information about the role of the Secretary. Whilst the Secretary is a servant and advisor to the Board, he or she is also a servant of the members. In an ideal world, the interests of the members and the board would coincide, but unfortunately this is not always the case. In such situations, the Secretary has a critical role in bringing potential conflicts to members' attention. That is not to say that whenever a Secretary does so, the Secretary is right and the Board is wrong. Such decisions ultimately are for the members, the Secretary's role is to make sure the members are aware of everything they need to know in order to arrive at their own conclusions. I am advised that the Secretary’s responsibility to the members is greater than any responsibility owed to the Board or its advisors. In addition to my responsibility to members, as someone who makes a living in financial services, I also have a responsibility to my family and my business. I believed that issues brought out by the audit of the Trust’s accounts gave rise to breaches of very important Rules in the Trust's Constitution. Although some might quibble over whether these issues and the amounts involved merited my actions, I can only say that it is not the place of the Secretary to second guess the members’ interpretation of the circumstances, any more than it is the job of the police to second-guess a jury in a court case. It is simply my job to make the members aware so that they can make a judgment, which is the role accorded to them in the Trust's Rules and the law of the land. Bearing in mind these principles, I was very uncomfortable with the first draft of the auditor’s management letter. Therefore, I asked them to consider including references to certain matters, and at the time they agreed that these references were appropriate. It is a fact that the auditors concluded that the breaches of Rules that I had identified could lead to action by the FSA or HM Revenue and Customs. Furthermore they concluded that controls over income and expenditure were weak and that this could lead to wrong amounts being paid, expenses not being recovered, the possibility of inaccurate accounts and an increased likelihood of errors and misappropriations. These were not my words; these were the auditor’s words. Under the circumstances I determined that I could not sign the accounts. At the same time, I resolved to resign as Secretary, both in line with the diktats of my conscience and business ethics and in order to be able to speak more freely if necessary at the forthcoming AGM. The auditor’s management letter is a tool to assist in the improvement of financial controls. Therefore I sent it to every member of the Board. The only agenda or “goal” that I had in so doing was to demonstrate the auditor’s support for the new financial management procedures that I had written some months earlier and thereby increase the probability of their being adopted. In am aware that the management letter was subsequently amended again but the Board’s recent statement appears to confuse the management letter with the Audit Report attached to the Accounts. Following my resignation I was not involved in the Board’s final preparations for the AGM but I can say that I fully expected them to make full disclosure to the members either in the published accounts or by way of a statement at the AGM. Frankly I was astonished that the Board's preferred outcome would be to prevent members being made aware of what I considered material facts in relation to the Accounts. At the AGM, I was prevented from making a statement when the accounts were being discussed. The Trust Board's statement in recent days suggests that I was told I could speak later in the meeting; I did not hear that said and neither did a number of others. Regardless, this is to miss the critical point. By the latter part of the agenda, the members would have agreed the accounts, and so closed the book on these matters. Had members heard my statement and wished to take action later in the meeting, it would have been too late in law. At the time, I did momentarily consider staying and trying to reintroduce my statement later in the meeting but by that time it could not have had any impact, which is the reason why I left at that point. My immediate thoughts were to find a means by which I could communicate the pertinent information to the people who needed to know it, the members. It was whilst considering this that my attention was drawn to reports of the meeting starting to be discussed on message boards. As these matters were already in the public domain, and since my actions were subject to discussion, I felt the only proper response was to place my thoughts on record, lest they be subject to further speculation. I did this with a very heavy heart, because in so doing, these matters came to the attention of non-members. I can only say that I had never intended for this to be so, but the action was forced upon me by the failure of the AGM Chair to allow me to speak at the critical point and to the subsequent reporting of events by some of those present. Whilst there is much with which I could take issue in the Trust’s statement, I see nothing to be gained by a further war of words. However, I reject as utter nonsense, the suggestion that my claims were in anyway exaggerated. On the contrary the Trust’s statement confirms the exact amount of the debt quoted by me, Ã?£2,690 and concedes that this was outstanding for an “extended period of time”, which is a polite way of saying from 12 to 23 months. However, in my opinion, the single most important point in the Trust’s statement is that their legal advice confirms my view that there was indeed a conflict of interest arising from the debt owed by Mr. Mark Dingwall. The statement omits to mention that neither Mr. Dingwall nor the Chair brought this debt, or the conflict of interest arising, to the attention of the Board. When I resigned as Secretary, several other Directors persuaded me to remain as a Director. However, the statement of the Trust Board makes it abundantly clear that their views are now vastly different to mine. Therefore, I can see that little positive can emerge for the Trust, its members or I from my continued membership of the Board. Furthermore, I cannot in all conscience remain in membership of a Board which takes such a different view of critical matters for the organisation and so I have tendered my resignation as a Director of the Trust. I am glad to have had the opportunity to serve as a Director and Secretary of RST and I am proud of my contribution. At all times I have acted in the best interests of the Trust and the wider trust movement which I now serve as Director of Supporters Direct. My actions have only ever been in fulfillment of my legal and ethical responsibility to enable the members to have possession of information that is rightfully theirs, and having done so, I will be making no further comment. I remain a member of the Trust, and a supporter of its goals of supporter involvement at the highest possible level in the ownership and governance of Rangers Football Club, and wish it every success in pursuit of these objectives. Alan S Harris 2 October 2010

Eight vacancies available if anyone is interested in joining the Trust board. Pretty certain a few of these 'Rule 64' resignations will be re-applying but with David Edgar definitely resigning, there will be a few places available for those who fancy a stint on the Trust board.

Felt it was unfair to blame only the Trust in the other thread so have expanded upon my thoughts here... The Failure of the Fans Groups In light of the ownership debacle at Rangers and the continuing supporter frustration over our finances and long term planning, is it about time we, the supporters, examined our own representative vehicles and ask ourselves if they're doing the job they were set-up to do? Before I begin, undoubtedly some people will see elements of this article as unfair criticism or as some sort of attack on individuals/other websites but I'd like to refute that immediately as the criticisms within also apply to my own time as a board member of the RST and, thus, my own failings. I'd like to also make clear these complaints don't just apply to one specific organisation but all the groups that purport to represent us. First of all, I find it astounding that in the last year or two the profile and active membership of these groups has not increased when one examines the various ongoing issues surrounding the club. Unfortunately, these groups don't seem to accept this or, if they do, lack the humility and vision to take steps to address it. For every excellent initiative they do have (e.g. GersPride, NARSA conventions, fan forums and the recent Trust family day), there are many more opportunities that seem to be ignored. It is clear the bulk of Rangers fans are not interested in becoming active members and there must be various reasons why. We can speculate and, while apathy is the main valid argument, there must also be a reason for this apathy when there remains a clear and present danger to our club's future. Of course two titles on the trot will be enough for many fans to gloss over our financial challenges. But most bears I speak to - and certainly large amounts online - are frustrated enough with the situation and are exasperated with the club's attitude towards the fans. They demand improvement. Therefore, there does appear enough people interested in supporters representation to make an independent group such as the Trust especially viable. But the groups themselves seem to lack the ability to turn interest into members and/or projects for everyone to place their weight behind. As such, it is all too easy for the club to ignore very fair statements such as the one the RST made yesterday. At GersPride last year, I believe the Trust board members talked about unity and leadership. Sure, they may have a reasonable working relationship with the Assembly and Association but what is coming from this other than the prevarication that there is no fan division when challenged about this unfortunate byproduct of past arguments? Not much unfortunately. I remain a huge supporter of fan involvement in the club - especially from an independent viewpoint, free from official constraints. After all a strong Trust would mean a stronger fan-base and, despite my own past problems with the organisation, I believe there remains enough talent within it to find improvement and deliver genuine representation to our support. Unfortunately, it is also clear that it is being held back from doing the proper outreach work it needs to achieve its goals. I certainly don't envy the work required to address that - after all, some of the criticism we see is unfair, overly strong and far too personal - but if the Trust really wants to grow, then brave faces must be put and true leadership must occur. The same applies to the other organisations who struggle to even gain the profile of the shareholder-based group. The Trust and the Assembly certainly have a solid base from which to build from. They have easily accessible websites, reasonable finance, plenty of interest and tens of thousands of fans to aim for online and offline. They even have a captive audience of 50,000 people at Ibrox every other week. Add in NARSA, ORSA and all the RSCs then the market is huge - even if I appreciate not always easy (or cheap) to tap into. Why then do we not see them step beyond the confines of Follow Follow (in the case of the Trust) often enough or the BlueNose.co.uk (in the case of the Assembly)? I don't just mean reps visiting other sites and collating information/floating ideas but regular offline meetings to share information and explore strategies together. I'd pay a tenner to help fund either of the organisations willing to go to their members for input. I'd pay more if some sort of socios project can be explored. Almost one year on since I submitted the STS project (itself far from perfect obviously) to the club and fan groups, the Assembly have had one such meeting at Ibrox for selected fans. The Trust have had GersPride which was open to all. Both were interesting and welcome events which had the potential to be repeated regularly - even on a smaller scale to reduce costs. Such meetings need to be more often, more accessible and debate opened up on their own websites (and beyond) to really involve their members. Even better if they could involve credible people within the support - such as club figures, former players, successful businessmen and celebrities. Only then will fans find the transparency and pro-activeness that may catalyse their own interest and make them feel like they're actually members of something instead of just numbers attempting to justify their existence and/or club budget. Indeed, for no large, public fans meeting to have been organised in light of recent events this year is nothing short of negligence by all the fan organisations. Imagine the momentum and pressure that could have been built up if a few of these had happened? Imagine the divisions that could have been healed by olive branches being offered by those elected to lead? Imagine the genuine information that could have been shared to avoid rumours and scaremongering that has blighted our recent title win? This was the ideal opportunity to build and improve. Has this open goal been missed? It is clear that supporters representation remains a key component of any club improvement in the coming years. Our unmatched annual investment is recognised by the club and yet we can't seem to formalise it - despite the promises of the esrtwhile chairman a few years back. That is a promise the supporters groups have not pressured on him to deliver. Probably because they realise deep down, they lack the ability to do so because they are so flawed themselves in so much that they don't have the clear backing of enough fans. Therefore, the current outreach activities of a few (often overly defensive) reps posting conflicting information on one chosen forum and the official reps of another group not even contributing to their online community, is hardly conductive to increasing memberships and influence therein. Sure, some websites may not make themselves attractive for constructive debate giving such reps convenient excuses not to take part, so the critics themselves are not free of blame. But when one suggests they can represent and lead, such challenges should be overcome when looking at the bigger picture. Yet still, the participation in our supporters groups appears to be at an all-time low despite the obvious problems at our club. That doesn't make sense and must be examined - no matter if the answers aren't easy to admit. Unfortunately, as it stands, I see little evidence of supporters led change outwith the usual soundbites in the media. I want to be proved wrong. To that end, one must ask do these organisations even want an active membership? Or are our supporters groups as inaccessible and unrepresentative as the club they regularly complain about? We deserve better.

http://www.rangerssupporterstrust.co.uk/rstsite/

TRUST ADVICE TO MEMBERS ATTENDING GAME AT CELTIC PARK, SUNDAY 31 AUGUST Over at least the last five years, many dozens of Trust members have expressed concerns about aspects of both policing and stewarding at Celtic Park. These concerns include: being threatened with arrest or ejection from the stadium for spurious, trivial or unexplained reasons; flags, banners and clothing with no offensive or sectarian connotations confiscated or not allowed into the Stadium; a gratuitously hostile, unfriendly attitude displayed by a handful of police officers and, more worryingly, a large number of stewards; intimidation and threats of arrest or ejection for singing ââ?¬Ë?sectarianââ?¬â?¢ songs, despite said songs having no sectarian content or connotations. These concerns have been aggravated by the obvious double standards on display, where the home support is seemingly at liberty to throw missiles at players and club employees, sing sectarian bile about ââ?¬Ë?Orange b*stardsââ?¬â?¢ and ââ?¬Ë?H*nsââ?¬â?¢ and display offensive and sectarian banners and flags. In advance of the game on Sunday, the Board of the Rangers Supportersââ?¬â?¢ Trust offers the following advice to our members: 1. Letââ?¬â?¢s conduct ourselves as we usually do, in a manner which accurately reflects the best traditions of our support and our Club and our pride in them. 2. The Club, the RST and other supportersââ?¬â?¢ groups are united in opposing racism, prejudice and sectarianism and have recognised the huge strides made by the Rangers support in recent seasons. Regardless of the inevitable provocation, do not hand our enemies any excuses for their behaviour or a propaganda gift by inappropriate singing or chanting. 3. Report any instances of provocative or inappropriate behaviour from opposition supporters to the police. Be polite, sensible and ask what, if any action is being taken. 4. If approached by stewards or police officers be calm, polite and avoid unnecessary confrontation. If asked to do something you believe unreasonable, ask precisely why or under what law or ground regulation this is being requested, and if necessary take note of names, police badge numbers and any witnesses in the vicinity. 5. If necessary use camera phones to record incidents of concern. If you or your fellow supporters are threatened, bullied, harassed or arrested unreasonably, ensure that you have witnesses to hand and note the location and time of any such incidents. The Trust Board will be meeting this week, in advance of the RST AGM next Saturday, and will review the conduct and outcome of Sundayââ?¬â?¢s game. We have had informal discussions with the Club on this and have also previously raised the issues with Strathclyde Police. We remain concerned at the lack of clarity in the responses from the Constabulary and the refusal of a high profile public service to either engage with or explain themselves to the public they profess to serve. The Trust AGM provides a perfect opportunity for the issue of conduct and treatment at Celtic Park to be debated and for Trust members to decide collectively how we take this forward. Stephen Smith RST Chair, on behalf of the Trust Board

"RST members will be aware that four members of the Trust Board met with the Club�s Chairman and Chief Executive yesterday. The main issues discussed were around the current and future relationships between the Club and the Trust. We are pleased to report that the meeting involved a full and frank discussion and exchange of views and concluded constructively. Trust representatives briefly outlined a number of issues which members had raised, and it was agreed that correspondence would be considered prior to any possible subsequent meeting, following which a full report back will be given to Trust members." http://www.rangerssupporterstrust.co.uk/rstsite/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=219&Itemid=43

http://www.rangerssupporterstrust.co.uk/rstsite/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=191&Itemid=2 It’s that time of year again! All members should have received the latest edition of the Blue Spirit (available for download here) which contains a wealth of information regarding the Trust. Within it, we once again invite you to renew your Trust membership for the year beginning April 2008/09. To facilitate this we have a variety of simple options for you to consider. These are as follows: - By Standing Order (form available by contacting us); - Online via our own secure payment facility (click here); - Online via PayPal (click here but please note we incur charges for this facility); - By paper membership form (available here or by contacting us). (Please note if you joined the Trust in the last 3 months you will not be asked to renew until April 2009) This year we are also delighted to offer various rewards for those who renew. These include the following which when put together actually means you get your money back: - Voucher for the RST Shop - Ã?£5 off when you spend Ã?£25 or more on RST merchandise; - Voucher for a free Rangers DVD worth Ã?£10 (while stocks last); - Win a limited edition Ibrox desk set worth Ã?£100 (new life members only); - Entered into draw for 2 tickets at RST annual dinner (new life members only); - Entered into draw for match-day hospitality for 2 at Wee Rangers Club (new life members only). To ensure every Trust member is receiving the very best service from the board, it’s vital your personal details are accurate and up to date. As such, if you change your email or home address, please contact the RST so we can update our records accordingly. If you do not receive our weekly emails, please contact us asap so we can add your address to the mass emailing list. The Trust board would like to take this opportunity to thank all members for their continued support. Remember, the Trust is THE engine that is driving change amongst the support and fighting the good fight on behalf of all Rangers fans throughout different areas in society. We continue to rely on the practical and financial support of our members to ensure our representation is of the standard you expect. As always, if you have any questions about the renewal procedure, please contact us in the usual way.

http://www.rangerssupporterstrust.co.uk/rstsite/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=192&Itemid=1 A total of one place will be up for Election during Quarter 2 of 2008, with the successful candidate being elected to serve a 3-year term, in accordance with the Trust Rules. Four members of the Trust Board who are due to stand for re-election have chosen to do so and the Board will be recommending their re-election. Assuming the members approve this, that still leaves places for 1 new member, and as the Trust Board always welcomes the input of fresh talent, here is the chance for ordinary members to get elected to the Board, which, once complete, will be 20 strong. Members interested in applying are asked to note the following: - Essentials Each candidate must be an adult member, and be proposed and seconded by two other adult members. The candidate, proposer and seconder, must all be current members for the 2008/09 membership year. Also, the candidate must not have any criminal convictions (other than spent convictions or minor motoring offences). After consulting with Supporters Direct, it has become apparent that if there are six or less nominations, then no election will take place. If that is the case, then we shall at least publish the A4 applications, which detail the reasons why each new applicant wishes to join the Board, sent in by each nominee in the next edition of the Blue Spirit, which will precede our AGM later this year. We do hope that the number of nominations does exceed six, but that is in the hands of RST members. - Desirables Candidates must be prepared to invest their time for the benefit of the Trust membership as a whole. Candidates should have particular skills which they can bring to the table, or alternatively a lot of disposable time available to help with the more routine functions of the Rangers Supporters Trust. - Hints Candidates are allowed to submit up to one A4 page outlining why members should vote for them. This will be circulated by our independent scrutineers with the ballot papers. It is not sufficient to state that you are a committed Rangers supporter ââ?¬â?? by definition, every Trust member is a committed fan, so we should take that as read. Instead and thereââ?¬â?¢s no need for modesty here; list what particular qualities, or assets, which could benefit the Trust as a whole. A good idea on your A4 page is to state your name, age, town of residence, and what section of Ibrox your season ticket is for, if you have one. NB: The closing date for receipt of applications, and processing of 2008/09 renewals for all nominees, proposers, seconders, and those wishing to vote, is Saturday 26th April 2008.

http://www.gersnetonline.net/newsite/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=487&Itemid=2 One of the most interesting items to come out of last weekââ?¬â?¢s club AGM was Sir David Murrayââ?¬â?¢s concession with regard to finally having a ââ?¬Ë?democratically electedââ?¬â?¢ Rangers fan on the executive board of the club (1). So what does this mean for the support? To being with, I feel we should concentrate on the key phrases ââ?¬â?? ââ?¬Ë?democratically electedââ?¬â?¢ and ââ?¬Ë?executive boardââ?¬â?¢. This is important as to give a proper idea of what kind of candidate we can expect to see nominated as well as the organisations responsible for these nominations. As it stands, via the Rangers Supporters Assembly (2), we have an ââ?¬Ë?officialââ?¬â?¢ organisation while via the Rangers Supporters Trust (3); we have an ââ?¬Ë?unofficialââ?¬â?¢ organisation. The Assembly actually encompasses all of the other bodies involved with the fans (from the Trust itself, to the Alliance, Association, NARSA and ORSA). Obviously, all these initials and groups can be confusing so weââ?¬â?¢ll try our best to keep it simple. The Assembly is also the official fans body in the eyes of the club. Set up by, then chairman, John McLelland to combat the perceived threat of the politically astute new Trust in 2003; the Assembly has an office within Ibrox Stadium and an annual budget of around Ã?£30,000 to carry our itââ?¬â?¢s duties. President Jim Templeton (interviewed here by Gersnet earlier this year) has been in charge since its inception and continues to represent the Rangers supporters at board level. His duties do not involve the executive business of the club and he does not attend the formal business of these meetings. As such, because of their official ties and because their remit isnââ?¬â?¢t as wide-ranging as many fans would like, the Assembly doesnââ?¬â?¢t seem to have the same credibility as the wholly independent Trust. Moreover, because the Assembly doesnââ?¬â?¢t have a ââ?¬Ë?one member ââ?¬â?? one voteââ?¬â?¢ system like the Trust, it also suffers from not being truly democratic in its approach. Indeed, while the Assembly conveys a sense of representing all fans not many fans are aware they are members or know how to raise issues through their reps. Flawed is perhaps the best description for the Assembly. On the other hand, the Trust is different in its workings. The organisation prides itself on being both democratic and open. All board members are elected (although co-option is also a necessary part of its constitution) and ratified by the membership. In addition, every member can attend and raise motions at their AGM. As part of the Assembly and through its regular dialogue with the club, the Trust also ensures it retains a professional, working relationship with the club to ensure its members opinions are constantly on the agenda with the powers that be. Recently, the chairman and secretary of the Rangers Supporters Association joined the Trust board as they felt their members (all RSCââ?¬â?¢s) were better represented by the Trustââ?¬â?¢s outlook. Jim Templeton was also co-opted at the same time but has since resigned for personal reasons. All this background information means that we essentially have two organisations vying for one RFC board position (initially at least). The Trust has already announced their chairman Malcolm McNiven (4) has been nominated to the club for the role. This was unanimously backed by the Trust board and is expected to be ratified by the membership at their AGM this week. Jim Templeton is also widely expected to secure an Assembly nomination although ââ?¬â?? unlike the Trust ââ?¬â?? the topic wasnââ?¬â?¢t raised at their AGM and so far no vote has been held of their committee. As such, if Mr Templeton is nominated by the Assembly, doubts remain as to the clarity of his candidacy in terms of David Murrayââ?¬â?¢s ââ?¬Ë?democratically electedââ?¬â?¢ comments. It certainly does seem the Trust vehicle satisfies those terms more effectively. Where the Trust nomination arguably does lack credibility is in its actual representation per se. Although it does have approaching 5000 members, it does not match the ââ?¬Ë?umbrellaââ?¬â?¢ nature of the Assembly which claims to (sometimes indirectly) represent the whole RFC support. Of course, while members of the Assembly, Association, Alliance etc are active members of the Trust (and vice versa), itââ?¬â?¢s this lack of unity across the spectrum that can cause confusion and division from time to time. Certainly, what is clear, is that the Trust are the only organisation who have been interested in genuine supporters representation in the terms SDM spoke of and their attempts to unite the different groups under their ethos are admirable. The Trust has been lobbying for a supporter on the executive board for nearly 5 years and thereââ?¬â?¢s no doubt they (and they alone) have managed to persuade the club chairman into his AGM comments. We can of course look at the two potential candidates as well. Both Jim Templeton and Malcolm McNiven come from business related backgrounds. Similarly, both are successful in their careers and both have worked hard to represent their members as office bearers of their organisations. Indeed itââ?¬â?¢s very difficult to separate their CVââ?¬â?¢s on first glance and one must delve deeper to find the differences worth of debate. The first again comes down to credibility. On all the major issues that have concerned Rangers fans over the last 5 years, itââ?¬â?¢s the McNiven led Trust that have been most vociferous and constructive in their work. From their unmatched media function; to fully in-depth safety reports on the Stuttgart/Pamplona disgraces; to bringing money into the club (via the impressive GerSave initiative); to open and full dialogue with the club administration ââ?¬â?? the Trust have been more active, more open, more vocal and more constructive in their work and achievements. While the Assembly works hard and often doesnââ?¬â?¢t receive the praise it occasionally deserves, they simply do not offer the same independence and results of the Trust. Especially when one considers their budget which seems to yield little compared to the Trust who are actually raising money for the club in their activities. That conclusion ââ?¬â?? however empirical it may be ââ?¬â?? raises another important question. If McNiven were to be elected onto the Board of the club, would the Trust lose that independence and credibility? Moreover, how could fans who are not members of the Trust feel they were truly represented? This certainly isnââ?¬â?¢t easy to answer either. What is clear is that part of McNivenââ?¬â?¢s initial remit would be to address those very issues. His initial main responsibility would be to formulate a workable and democratic system of membership and election to which he himself would voluntarily submit when it was in place. Having him organise this from his current unique position of independence and democratic background would ensure the kind of credible results all supporters want. Once this is in place then we can then move onto the issue of ensuring that year on year we have the most suitable person representing all of us. Further, instead of having several different organisations pulling in different directions, we should have one unified group acting in the best possible interests of us all. This should be in the form of an organisation where everyone can be involved in how it works as well as the decision-making processes. Due to the hard work of the Trust, the first steps have been made. These will define the direction for the future. Letââ?¬â?¢s begin by having a learned democratic, independent supporter outlining genuine supportersââ?¬â?¢ representation. Malcolm McNiven is the best choice of pioneer and his nomination should have widespread backing. Iââ?¬â?¢m confident that if we put our trust in him we will secure the kind of open and unified representation many of us have wanted for a long time. Not only that, his previous record will help ensure the hardest questions are asked of the board while innovation, imagination and ambition are once more part of the executive board of Rangers. With the current positive results on the field, having a supporter on the board of the club can only enhance our future. As a well known Rangers supporter once said ââ?¬â?? ââ?¬Ë?there can be only oneââ?¬â?¢ ââ?¬â?? letââ?¬â?¢s make sure itââ?¬â?¢s the right one. References 1 - http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/r/rangers/6961230.stm 2 - http://www.rangersassembly.com/ 3 - http://www.rangerssupporterstrust.co.uk/ 4 - http://www.rangerssupporterstrust.co.uk/rstsite/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=136&Itemid=1

For our second Gersnet Interview, weââ?¬â?¢re delighted to welcome Rangers Supporters Trust media spokesman, David Edgar to the chair. David joined the Trust board 3 years ago and has done a fantastic job in his position. From radio and TV interviews to verbal jousts with broadsheet journalists, many Rangers fans will be more than aware of his combative ââ?¬â?? yet accurate and honest ââ?¬â?? style. Anyway enough of the compliments and onto the questions! David, obviously youââ?¬â?¢re heavily involved in supportersââ?¬â?¢ representation. Just how important do you think an independent organisation such as the Trust is for the fans? Itââ?¬â?¢s a vital organisation because as football grows more and more corporate, the fans are treated more like customers and their views are not taken into account the way they should be. Indeed, one of the main reasons for the RSTââ?¬â?¢s rapid growth has been the feeling of disconnection the fans have from the club. We aim to have two seats on the board of Rangers because we know then that supportersââ?¬â?¢ views would be represented in a clear, determined and erudite fashion. What would you say has been the most important Trust contribution since it was founded? It would be difficult for me to pinpoint that ââ?¬â?? it is like asking a parent to name their favourite child! Obviously, as someone on the media team Iââ?¬â?¢m proud that weââ?¬â?¢ve helped attack the negative, often vitriolic coverage of the club and the support. Iââ?¬â?¢m proud that weââ?¬â?¢ve represented our membersââ?¬â?¢ concerns direct to the Chairman and Iââ?¬â?¢m proud that the Board listen to us (which is not to say they always agree with us!) Iââ?¬â?¢m also proud that we are so heavily involved as our support modernise. Overall Iââ?¬â?¢m happy that the RST is a place where Gers fans can unite in their love of a wonderful institution. Some fans would suggest that itââ?¬â?¢s impossible for a support to own and run a football club. How would you counter that? Barcelona seem to do okay! I think there is a misconception that if the RST gained control of the board, weââ?¬â?¢d all give up our jobs and take cushy positions at the club! We arenââ?¬â?¢t naÃ?¯ve ââ?¬â?? I donââ?¬â?¢t know how to run a business with a turnover of Ã?£60m and I wouldnââ?¬â?¢t even attempt to. We would have in place qualified personnel from both the business and football community and charge them with the day-to-day running of the club. The board would be made up of elected officials who would have to answer to the members. If they did a bad job, theyââ?¬â?¢d be out! The main difference is that every fan would have a vote in the overall direction of the club. Many Rangers supporters continue to be annoyed with what they feel is a media witch-hunt towards our club. If this is the case, how would you recommend we deal with it? Well, the stock answer is to say ââ?¬Ë?do not buy/read/listenââ?¬â?¢ to that which offends you. But Iââ?¬â?¢m afraid that turning the other cheek is what brought us to this position in the first place. My suggestion has always been direct action. Write to the journalist, write to the editor, and stop your friends from buying these products. Let them know you are not prepared to put up with it. Itââ?¬â?¢s a lot better than it was in 2002/2003 when halfwit journalists were allowed to espouse their own bigotry under the cover of crusading against sectarianism. (I vividly recall a drunk who worked for a broadsheet newspaper at the time having the gall to lecture Rangers fans on morality!) Itââ?¬â?¢s still a hard fight ahead, but I believe that these constant attacks against us ââ?¬â?? especially the more hysterical ones (Nuremburg, anyone?) ââ?¬â?? have brought us closer together as a support and helped re-establish the community element of the support. Itââ?¬â?¢s blatantly obvious that we are treated differently from the other half of the Old Firm, but I like the fact that our support donââ?¬â?¢t just sit and moan about it, they get in the ribs of the people behind it. Recently, the Trust has been working with other fansââ?¬â?¢ groups to show unity in how we approach certain issues. How important is such teamwork? Vital. Many groups, one consistent message Thereââ?¬â?¢s plenty of room for debate on how we go forward, but the one constant is clear ââ?¬â?? we all love the Rangers and we all want to help shield it from things which could damage it. Onto less political matters now. Domestic success in recent years has been minimal for our great club. Do you think Walter Smith can turn this around and regain the title? I certainly do. Walter is a better manager now than he was when he left, and his organisational skills and ability to motivate players have been evident since his return. If you are my age, Ally McCoist is your hero, so it is terrific to see him back at the club. Itââ?¬â?¢s also great to see guys in charge who have blue blood running through their veins. As I said earlier, there is a gap between the players and the fans at ALL clubs in modern football ââ?¬â?? itââ?¬â?¢s hard for us to see a guy going through the motions when his wage packet is bigger in a week than ours is in a year AND when weââ?¬â?¢d gladly play for the club for free! Walter and Ally wear their hearts on their sleeves and that resonates with the support. However, whilst both these guys are clearly very talented, they canââ?¬â?¢t work miracles; the Chairman MUST give them adequate resources to bring in the level of player required to gain success, not just domestically, but in Europe too (where Walterââ?¬â?¢s record in his first spell was patchy.) Weââ?¬â?¢ve messed around in the bargain basement Bosman bucket for too long now. What are your thoughts on the unsuccessful PLG era? These things happen. He is clearly an intelligent coach, but he looked at the end like he didnââ?¬â?¢t know what had hit him. The SPL is a strange wee league ââ?¬â?? good players have flopped here then done well in what youââ?¬â?¢d say were superior leagues. I think he felt it would be easier than it was and in the end, he simply didnââ?¬â?¢t want to be here. He made some very poor signings and some equally bad decisions, but he did some good things too ââ?¬â??I donââ?¬â?¢t think Charlie Adam would have had such a good season if PLG hadnââ?¬â?¢t been here. Do we need a large transfer budget to ensure we donââ?¬â?¢t fail again this year? How much do you think we can afford to spend? Weââ?¬â?¢ve got to spend Ã?£8-10m minimum. That shouldnââ?¬â?¢t be out of the budget of a club our size, and if it is, we should be looking at the financial management of the club and asking questions.