magnus

There's no hope for you Brother.

Imagine posting something sensible. Has your account been hacked?

Not many happy with the RST? Maybe in your small world.

Clubs could put in place a 90 notice clause to quit I'd imagine.

No danger of him being blocked. A judicial review would clear him.

Whoever takes the helm following the AGM will have to be given a chance to run the club to the best of their ability. The winners will be able to point to obtaining a democratic majority at a properly constituted meeting. They will require to run the club openly with transparency and be honest and fair with all of our support. Reward those who work for Rangers appropriately and proportionately according to their skill set and value to Rangers. If we require fresh investment then people who are acceptable to institutional investors as well as supporters will be required to be involved in the club. We have undergone major trauma during the past couple of years. Our enemies have attempted to destroy us and failed. However major division exists within the support involving a small but extremely vocal minority. Those involved must put personal enmity aside for the greater good of Rangers. If they are unable to do so they should stand aside and be quiet. We have to move on.

Not enriching themselves at our expense, unlike the current board, would be a good start. If the board had allowed the AGM to be held with the other nominees it would never have reached court. Of course you already know that but it doesn't suit your agenda.

He has been on Sky, STV and the BBC. Hardly running to our enemies.

I sincerely hope that the people who are your business associates and fellow directors do not clandestinely film you when you are enjoying a meal with someone you thought was honest and trustworthy. The City of London financial institutions appear to trust his business decisions.

It is a plus all right the court of session said so. A big minus for the spivs who have cost us money yet again. All that was required was a fair vote at the AGM. Hardly unreasonable.

The accounts much better? They are nothing short of disgraceful and very short in detail rather conveniently for the board.

Oh the irony from a poster called swally.

A rather fanciful notion I would suggest.

I believe they were wrong in law hence costs awarded to petitioners. If the board have nothing to hide or be afraid of why would they attempt to stop a legitimate petition from being placed on the agenda? Time to go spivs and dont let the door hit your erse on the way out.