Lisburnranger

I am a board member of the RST, but I came across this information entirely independently of the trust.

I appreciate why you're asking but sorry I can't reveal who told me. Should have said in the OP, take it or leave it.

No further links with CW found. I wonder if MM will leak this to Keith Jackson via Paul Murray, like he has with everything else. I think not. £100,000 a week this investigation is costing. To put that into context, 300 season ticket renewals per week.

I'm not going to get involved with you in a tit for tat argument. You asked some questions and I've answered them as honestly and as accurately as I'm able to. You can choose to believe or disbelieve any part you want. There are parts of your reply that I am dubious about but there is no way of really knowing since its the internet, so I wont lose any sleep over it.With regards to your first paragraph, I'm in a similar position to you. I run my own business and also have a young family. I dont have a lot of spare time, so I wouldn't be involved in anything that was aimed at furthering one persons agenda. I don't know what reasons you were given for the setup of the RST but they are not relevant now. The aims of the RST are available for anyone to see.Mark Dingwall is a board member, just not an office bearer. You're mole is wring on that one.

Are you referring to the Evening Times article? If so, that is a huge leap you have made to link that to Mark Dingwall being present. A quick look back on the board shows that it was you who first suggested that he was there. You have really gone to some lengths to deliberately mis-interpret the article to the extent you have. Mark Dingwall was speaking in his capacity as RST spokesman, and the 'we' he referred to was in fact the RST board. My responses to your questions are below. I've only been on the board since October last year so will answer as best I can. We don't speak for all the fans and have never claimed to. We speak for our members and our members alone. We have around 2500 members. I don't have the exact figures to hand 1. I don't know what your definition of an active member is, but our the vast majority of the membership either joined in December through BuyRangers or joined/renewed last month. 2. I'm not really sure what you are asking. I don't know how many original members are still members. The RST have admitted that hey have made mistakes over the years and the communication with members (including renewal information) hasn't always been the best. We have now launched a new website which will improve this dramatically. 3. Members invested in the Community Benefit Society which is the RST. The society which is a legal entity in its own right purchased shares in the IPO. The Shares are owned by the RST and are controlled by the Community Shareholders. When it comes to voting, the community Shareholders will be balloted and the majority will rule. We have been approached by a number of RIFC Plc shareholders who invested directly in the IPO, who have asked if they can proxy their vote to the RST. We are working on the legal framework for that at the moment. 4. The primary aim of he RST is to acquire shares in the club which will lead to supporter representation on the board, and ultimately over the long term, to supporter ownership. We invested £250k in the IPO and have a sum sitting at the moment which will be used to purchase another tranche of shares. It was the RST membership which paid for he Sam English Bowl which is on display in the trophy room at Ibrox. A former RST chairman was the man who exposed the proposed deal between David Murray and Gavin Masterton for the sale and leaseback of Ibrox 5. The incident you refer to was a long time before my time. Perhaps you could expand more on the circumstances surrounding it. Whilst clearly not an ideal situation, following legal advice and advice from the auditors it was decided that he should stay on the board. 6. The RST's decision to back the BKs made sense at the time as their reported plans were completely in line with their own stated aims. The fact that PM and co. could only come up with a derisory bid was extremely disappointing. At the time, nobody involved with the RST could have known that the bid was so low. I wasn't involved back then but my belief is it wasn't a mistake backing TBK, but it was a mistake not to have a plan B. FF is not the RST and he RST is to FF. There were fans who didn't want Bill Miller, but those who organised banners and email campaigns were not doing so on behalf of the RST. I've answered your questions to the best of my knowledge. Looking at some of your posts on the RST, who at the end of the day are fellow Rangers fans, has been quite staggering. Some of your comments have been utterly ridiculous. As much a you appear to want it to be the case, Mark Dingwall does not run the RST. Given the venom in your posts, I can't help but think their is a personal agenda here for you against Mark Dingwall or the RST as a whole. You said that they came into your office but took advice from a Celtic fan and not you. Is that what this is all about? Pretty pathetic if it is. I don't expect everyone to support us, but going to great lengths to be offended is something else entirely.

I'm an RST board member and I'd be interested to hear more about another attendee at this meeting. (I assume you are referring to the merting between our Chair, Secretary and Malcolm Murray) The report I received didn't mention anything about anyone else being there. My gut reaction is that this isn't true, but if it is then it needs to be taken further. PM me if you want

It was also quoted in the IPO prospectus that the assets went directly to Sevco Scotland. The most important thing is, this means Craig Whyte has no claim against the club. What is concerning is that a club spokesman categorically stated that the assets were transferred to Sevco 5088 in the first instance. This isn't a mistake. The direct transfer of assets to Sevco Scotland was vital for CG and co to cut Craig Whyte out of the deal

Eh, surely everyone sees it as a negative that shareholders would be the ones to benefit from post IPO purchases, and not Rangers. You see it as a negative that shareholders will benefit from post IPO purchases. I would assume you don't want to see negatives happen, therefore you don't want people to buy the shares from them Bearing in mind that post IPO Rangers do not benefit from any trading of shares. I get the impression you are reading what you want to read here.

This is a long term project and not just about the IPO. The Swansea City Supporters Trust own 20% of their club. It has taken them 9 years to achieve this. It may take 10 years plus for the RST to get to that stage, who knows? The individuals involved will change but the aim will stay the same.

If your read Aluko's earlier point he said that by purchasing through the secondary market was a negative because the club would be missing out on the money. My point was that Rangers fans buying shares on the AIM wouldn't effect the level of investment the club was seeking as all shares would be taken up. I believe most Rangers fans would rather see the shares in the hands of supporters rather than institutional investors, but that wasn't what my point was about

Of course it's better for Rangers fans to buy those shares. Nobody is stopping Rangers fans buying shares unless of course they don't have a spare £500 the week before Christmas. Going by your logic those fans will never have the opportunity to become shareholders because they shouldn't buy shares from the secondary market. If bears shouldn't buy shares on the secondary market that means institutional investors will always own those shares. That is why it is not a negative to buy shares on the secondary market

I must be missing something. What is the alternative? Nobody is suggesting that anyone should invest through the secondary market rather than the IPO. Once the option of the IPO is closed, it is either secondary market or nothing.

Why is it a negative? Charles Green has stated that all the offer shares will be taken up. This means the club is achieving the money it set out to achieve. You referred to Chris Graham's comments in a previous post. You may be referring to a different thread, so my apologies if that is the case. The thread I read Chris comment on was re. fans who couldn't or wouldn't invest £500. The option for them was £125 through BuyRangers or buy what they can on the secondary market. Chris commented that if they invest in the IPO through BuyRangers, the club would get the money which is true. Any shares bought after the IPO whether by individuals on the open market or by BuyRangers will be purchased from other investors.

You're right in what you say. I'm not sure if I'm picking you up wrong but going by your other posts you see this as a negative. The scheme will also purchase shares through the IPO.

Who said you wouldn't have to join the RST? http://www.buyrangers.org/faq/ Why do I have to pay to become a member of the Supporters’ Society in addition to buying my share? To invest in the community share scheme by law you have to also be a member of the Industrial & Provident Society registered as The Rangers Supporters Society Ltd to satisfy the Financial Service Authority regulations. It is not possible to invest in a Community Share offer unless you are a member of the Society.

£125 buys you one community share. The £125 is used to purchase shares in the club whether that is through the IPO at 70p per share or on the secondary market at the prevailing price. The price can go up or down. The purchase price isn't hugely relevant as the shares will never be sold. Obviously, the cheaper the price the more shares can be bought, but the share price reflects the health of the club to a certain extent, which is the most important thing.

The club will get the money for the shares which are purchased through the IPO. Post IPO they will keep purchasing shares when available to increase the supporter holding

He has posted the response he got to his question so he has clearly contacted them.

I leave shortly, once more, for a city rather drier and a good deal more violent than dear old Glasgow. But before I do let me leave you with two thoughts for now, addressing the question – were Rangers cheating? That means two things – cheating the taxman and cheating football by breaking the rules over notifying the Scottish football authorities of player payments. First – were they cheating football? Well the short answer is that it is for Lord Nimmo-Smith’s independent commission to answer in January. However the lawyers have already given us some fascinating pointers. We have known for months from lawyers inquiring into the issue that there is, in their words “a case to answer”. Now, the First-tier tax tribunal opinions have shed fascinating light on whether or not Rangers cheated? For now that must remain a question but the facts as revealed in the FTTT report are quite unambiguous. The majority view is that the trust payments were loans not salary, thus there was not an absolute entitlement, thus the football authorities did not need to be told. Ibrox hopes that’s enough. It hopes football regulation essentially follows tax precedent. But by the time Lord Nimmo sits HMRC may have lodged an appeal – and the majority report is merely unfinished business. With the chancellor, public accounts committee. And many an MP baying for blood over corporate tax avoidance and even Starbucks rethinking their moral and fiscal stance, it’s interesting mood music as HMRC considers its next move. Even the majority report is deeply critical of the operation, specifically Mr Red, in the anonymised reports, who ran the trust scheme at Rangers. So was Mr Red himself! Page 4: ”He did accept that the Group had been less than forthcoming in response to HMRC’s enquiries than he would have wished, but he explained that he had been guided by Messrs Baxendale-Walker.” That is, the Murray Group continued to take its guidance from the organisation of Paul Baxendale-Walker, soft-porn king and struck-off solicitor. Further, page 4 continues: “Mr Red was somewhat defensive in his evidence about the Group’s motives in operating the Trust.” And, simply, that Mr Red lied according to Counsel, for the Respondents (HMRC) Roderick Thomson. Page 36: “He had lied in material respects to the Tribunal, Mr Thomson claimed.” There were side-letters which detailed monies, revealed by the FTTT and Mr Red, the man who administered the EBT scheme at Rangers, accepted and defended the fact that football’s authorities were not informed of them. Page 70 – the minority report: “Another strand of evidence being tested was the nature and purpose of the side-letters. Asked about the secrecy surrounding the side-letters, referring to the fact that they were not lodged with the SFA, nor disclosed in the long period of HMRC’s enquiry, Mr Red’s reply was: ‘I still say there is nothing secret about them. We have nothing to hide in these side letters’. While not denying the proposition put to him by the Respondents that ‘there’s an overarching contract with each of the footballers, consisting of the written contract and the side letters’, Mr Red maintained that ‘it’s our view that the side-letter or the letters of undertaking do not need to be registered or lodged with the SFA’ (Day 3/31-32).” On page 71 the dissenting opinion concludes: “It is not accepted that there had been no deliberate concealment of the side-letters”, which is about as straightforward as you can get on this critical issue, though this is of course the minority opinion. On page 87 of the FTTT minority report the operation and non-disclosure of the side-letters detailing payments is set out for us all to see at last: “In cases where the Remuneration Trust arrangement was used, the agreement would have two parts: the employment contract and a letter of undertaking, usually signed on the same day. The letter of undertaking is referred internally within the group as ‘the side-letter’, and stated that the employer would undertake to contribute specified sums at specified dates into the employee’s sub-trust. The side-letter was not lodged with the SFA or SPL.” Mr Red is the man who brought the Employee Benefit Trust Scheme to Rangers. His evidence to the FTTT is summed up thus, page 70: “…he was vague and evasive…” And: “…he was not on sure ground…” He gave the impression that he was: “…trying to tell a version of how the trust scheme should operate, rather than the version as it actually operated.” He was not, however, alone: in her dissenting opinion Dr Poon concludes, on page 66: “The overall impression created by the Witness Statements from the Murray Group senior employees…was one of guardedness and careful omission of salient facts.” And as we have seen there is consensus over the evasiveness of key witnesses like Mr Red across both tribunal reports. So, since by a two to one majority the club loans scheme was found to be legal – subject to possible appeal – why the institutional secrecy, obstruction and evasiveness which was found unanimously by the tribunal against the old Rangers club? It will be for Lord Nimmo-Smith to consider what monies, what side-letters and for which players and which matches, the football authorities were kept in the dark about, come January – and if that secrecy was legit or not. It is for him to consider therefore, whether this amounts to cheating. For him to consider whether Mr Red, for all his evasion and secrecy is nonetheless right – the side-letters were never the SFA or SPL’s business. But incontrovertible evidence of non-disclosure and a culture of secrecy and evasiveness about the notorious side-letters is now in the public domain, partly through the work of bloggers, some Scottish papers, Channel 4 News and BBC’s Panorama. And all the above and much more is now in the public domain, thanks to FTTT, there to be read and reported – and there’s no possible witch-hunt for sources and leaks this time around.

I think he would do a great job in our PR dept, but I agree with you. I would like to see him write a blog exposing the Scottish mhedia for exactly what it is. As much as I'd like to see the rhats outed publicly, it is not something I would like to see a Rangers employee doing

It will be from the Save Rangers database. The RFFF would not give those details out

To be honest, each group serves it's own purpose. We have 2 groups in the stadium who create a fantastic atmosphere. We have numerous message boards which I don't see any problems with. That really only leaves the RFFF, RSA, RST and the Assembly which is the umbrella organisation. Contrary to popular belief they do work together and their respective boards have members in common. They are made up of different personalities from all walks of life. Clearly not everyone will be the best of friends. They are united in that they are all Rangers supporters who want the best for the club. To suggest otherwise would be ridiculous when you consider the amount of time these guys give up for their respective organisations. If you put a group of passionate people round a table and get them to discuss something they are passionate about, you will always get clashes and fallouts. The important thing is that they can and do still work together

I was told back in July that the panel were split. At that stage it was one for and one against us. The 3rd panel member took a ridiculous length of time to come to a decision

Rangers Media can't legally collect money and invest on behalf of supporters. Liverpool fans tried this when Hicks and Gillette were in charge and were told by the FSA to return the money. An individual or group collecting money on behalf of other fans and then investing it is by definition acting as an investment manager. Members of RM could, if they wanted form an investment club, but there are also regulations to follow for that

My apologies, that was my understanding and clearly it's wrong.