AMcK

Hopefully this one is no more than a rumour. Laughable.

Great movement, great link-up. Much more like it!

Macleod is the player we should be building our team around. He is still young and learning his trade but he's easily our best CM and deserves to start there. It's bizarre that he can't get a game there normally but even worse when the likes of Black is suspended and McCulloch takes his place. We always have to be careful not to over-hype players but Macleod certainly looks like a top talent who can continue to develop.

I think in one of the earlier meetings it was mentioned that it could be done with club approval, ie have shareholders assign voting rights or proxy to RF on a long-term basis, not just for one AGM which means the process has to be repeated each time. That would certainly be attractive to many as they keep their shares but voting rights and brought together to give fans a greater influence.

Easiest way to do it would be to allow fans to proxy their shares over to RF, although as things stand that can only be achieved when AGM / EGM documents are issued by the club. If I remember correctly club can issue forms to allow more permanent proxies to be carried out, but it would require their consent. RF basically works through donations. I assume the thinking is that it will encourage people to keep contributing, even at just £5 p/m, to maintain their voting rights. Alternatively donating IPO shares means you become a member of Club1872, a life membership, which means you can always vote even if you stop your monthly payments. I can't imagine most fans plan to hold their shares for financial gain anyway so it is definitely an option. From £5 p/m I think it is worthwhile and we could really see the strength in numbers if more and more people give it a chance. For me it is the way forward because the alternative means sitting back and waiting for someone else to sort out the current mess again, and look where that got us.

Good to see RF contacting existing shareholders. If some of those shares are donated / proxied then it will have been worthwhile. I understand people having some reservations about RF but for me it is exactly the kind of thing that we need to work in the long-run. We've seen what happens when the club is open to certain individuals and we can do our bit to prevent that, but we need to own shares. Fans hold a large number of shares as things stand but when they are not collective or used together then the influence is greatly reduced. RF really needs to progress with its board elections and get things moving from there. Lots of work going on in the background I'm sure but momentum seems to have been lost slightly.

Was fortunate enough to take in a few u20s games last season. Was very impressed with Gasparotto and Halkett at the back. They coped very well when put under pressure by teams probably as good or better than the opposition we were playing in part-time leagues. Neither player may be the answer going forward, it's hard to say, but both were capable of playing in the last two leagues, especially given how poor we were at the back at times.

Disagree on both counts. Current squad should be good enough to win the Championship with the right management and the party was absolutely ridiculous. A post-match meal in itself is fine, but karaoke after such a humiliating result is simply another slap in the face of supporters.

The players should have been in at Auchenhowie first thing this morning watching a rerun of the game. They should have been slaughtered for their lack of desire and commitment yesterday. Sadly however our problems lie with our management team. They have set the standards that have allowed such awful football to continue. They have defended abject performance after abject performance. It's embarrassing and somebody of Ally's standing at our club should know that.

Fan ownership isn't a perfect solution, but nothing is. Look at our recent history with Murray, Whyte & Green. Do we want to be sitting a few years down the line still complaining about owners or directors damaging our club? If not then I'd like to think we are capable of doing something about it. We're probably not looking at fans owning >50% so it won't be total control but there is a possibility of securing a significant shareholding to protect our interests and those of the club. I can't see that as a bad thing. Plenty of details obviously still have to be worked out but I think the emails and objectives are very well intentioned. At the end of the day if whatever is proposed isn't viable then it won't go ahead and we'll be no worse off for looking at our options.

I don't think the fans owning a worthwhile percentage is fantasy, far from it. You've got to remember it's not as if the fans would be running the club, it's just about ensuring that our interests and those of the club are protected. I think most fans for example can see that Wallace is a very credible individual and a good appointment. Fan ownership on any level wouldn't change that. Do we really want to continue with no say in what goes on at Rangers? Do we want to risk the scenarios we've had in recent years happening again?

Indeed. If any move was made towards fan ownership, it would need everybody to co-operate. FoH pretty much came out of nowhere and it a short period of time are now collecting an average of £17 from 8,000 members each month. What was crucial was that it was widely supported.

Honestly D'Art I don't know. I'd like to think we just need the right mechanism for it and that it's not simply that we can't be bothered or whatever. I think after everything we've been through in recent years there would be some enthusiasm for it but maybe that isn't the case, I don't know.

Completely understand that some people wouldn't want certain individuals involved. That's partly why my own thoughts were to create a new group, a fresh start that should hopefully remove any links to existing groups or certain individuals. Personally I haven't had any issues with MD or CG, although I've seen enough comments to know that both aren't popular with certain people. In an ideal world it shouldn't be about individuals. Anybody elected should essentially be working on behalf of the members and so their own views are irrelevant to some extent. I'd just like to think that we as a collective support could pull together and do something worthwhile in terms of helping to secure the future of the club. The £5M our fans invested at the IPO would now buy around 20% of the club. I'd like to think that sort of level of investment is achievable.

Just catching up with some of he comments on here. I take your point about the legends, but surely fans could get behind the involvement of somebody like Sandy Jardine or someone of his calibre? It's not a necessity but merely a suggestion that I thought might help. As for 'respected fans', I'm sure we must have some credible fans amongst a support of our size. It would be up to the members to decide who they think is 'respected', or whatever way you want to word it, and it would be up to them to democratically elect the people they want. As I said the topic deserves a much wider debate and more informed contributions than my own, but I just feel that surely we must be able to do something to ensure that our interests and Rangers' interests are being represented. Maybe a majority ownership is out of the question but if we owned a significant percentage, along with current institutions and other shareholders, then I think that would be a good model going forward and would help ensure our club isn't being exploited by people looking to make a quick buck.

He certainly hasn't matched his early season form. Could probably drop him, move MacLeod into the middle and start McKay / Temps on the left.

Was glad to see Aird getting a chance as he hasn't had too many this season. Thought he played very well and certainly provides a better balance to the team on that side than Peralta offers. Would certainly be good to see him getting a decent run in the team, I think he deserves it.

We shouldn't be bringing anyone in unless some players are shifted out. Pointless signings such as Foster and Smith have landed us with a squad that is bigger and more expensive than is close to necessary. Until we move on some fringe players then don't see why we would need to bring anyone in during the January window to win a league that is already won. We should be looking to trim our squad, not add to it.

Don't think Hart resigning is any great loss. Not sure what he actually brought to the table and he was of the people pushing for Green's return which turned out to be an error of judgement.

The club in itself does not have a legal personality, but is merely a recognisable entity. All contracts, entitlements and such likes are with the company. For example this is why the authorities had to blackmail us into accepting the liability for football debt as legally there was no need for us to pay it.

Think the board would have to work hard to rebuild confidence with the institutional investors given recent results and loss made by IPO investors. Personally I'd be happy to invest again if the money was going to the right area such as improving the squad for our return to the top-flight.

I agree with the idea of having a supporters group aligned directly with the Club. Perhaps an idea similar to RFFF with fans and club legends placed on the board. I also agree that this should be as a replacement for current groups as they aren't really relevant given their small representation. The membership and benefits would take some consideration as they would have to be attractive to a vast range of supporters but the idea itself is positive. I believe the Club are currently looking into a membership scheme although not sure where we stand on that given recent events.

Don't think the issue should be where the money came from, instead it should simply be the fact that the company paid for its own acquisition at a time when it is haemorrhaging cash.

Agreed, and these are the sort of questions that the accounts will not answer. Much like the alleged £450k paid to Zeus for a 9 week loan.

Ah, must have missed that. Had a quick look and note £4.3M under 'costs incurred in relation to fundraising'.