Easdale – Call a Halt and Get Round a Table

As The Daily Record reports that Rangers Director Sandy Easdale is set to sue Craig Houston of the Sons of Struth, it serves as a very high profile reminder that the relationship between the club, and certain anti board activists is at an all-time low.

While the anti-board activists have behaved in a despicable manner through various incarnations, I believe firmly that Easdale should not be acting. Yet.
The fact he is, for me, rings major alarm bells.

While his alleged legal action is in his own name, I believe that Graham Wallace, on behalf of the club, should have persuaded him to desist. At least for now.

Wallace, after all, is nearing completion of his 120 day review of the club’s operations, and should therefore be in a position to finally offer the kind of clarity on the recent past and on plans for the future that the Anti-board activists have been asking for all along.

If the plan is strong enough to stand behind, then the whole board should be primed to do just that, and if it is a review and plan of substance and credibility then the Anti-board activists will have to accept that it is time they stood down and backed the board.

Despite bluster to the contrary, following King’s meeting with the board, the self-styled “union of fans” agreed to allow the board to complete the 120 day review.
This means that they can back down if Dave King tells them to do so.

This is all supposition of course, but if the current board’s “plan” was rock solid, and several Rangers supporting individuals persisted in attempts to destabilise the board, by whichever means at their disposal, then frankly, I would expect the club to take action.

As it stands though, the club has made no effort to communicate to fans and the 120 day review isn’t complete.

A cynic might say that the club could in theory be taking action against Houston to silence critics ahead of the publication of the review and what may be in it.

That’s why, despite me believing that Houston and several individuals pulling his strings are in some way deserving of their current predicament due to their conduct, the club, and Easdale, are not winning over friends by silencing him the wrong way. The right way, clearly, is to give all Rangers fans confidence that the club is being managed properly, and has a robust plan to build for the future.

Houston, for his part, would have a greater chance of support from the wider fan base had he not disrespected any Rangers supporter asking questions, slated other Rangers supporters in the national press, or misled supporters about the involvement of Malcolm Murray in discussions about the Sons of Struth.

The quote from him in today’s Record that “I’ve made his lawyers aware of similar posts on three other forums”, should ring alarm bells for any supporters of SoS who may have been caught up in the hype. One would hope that it is not Rangers fans on Rangers forums that Houston is grassing up to save his own skin.

Neither side are acting in a matter befitting Rangers, and I for one would be angered if some suggestions for RFFF money to be used to fund Houston’s legal defence, were approved.
This money, which was raised in good faith by the support during the summer of 2012, should not be used to support an individual fighting Rangers directors. The suggestion is absurd.

While Houston looks to have been pushed under the bus by other anti-board activists, one would expect that they personally should fund his defence, and not leave him on the streets for fighting their cause. If, for instance, the RST can raise funds of £1.5M to “loan” to the club, then they can afford to foot Houston’s legal bills.

This whole episode is unedifying but the most worrying aspect for me is the club’s apparent lack of confidence that the 120 day review and subsequent plan isn’t strong enough to silence even the strongest critics.

In some ways the legalities of some dodgy allegations on a Facebook page are an unwelcome side show and I hope they don’t’ overshadow the most important business review in the recent history of the club. That review is where all eyes should be focused.

Bill.

Don’t Be Conned

As younger voters become turned off by the Independence Referendum, this should ring the largest alarm bells with Better Together.
As BBC Scotland and STV and the Scottish media pummel the public in Scotland, the saturation of the airwaves of the “arguments” between the Nationalists and Unionists is irritating enough for me as someone with a keen interest in both maintaining the union, and challenging many of the lies u-turns and misleading statements from the SS (SalmondSturgeon) Party.

My view is that the Yes campaign are not only trying to con the public in to voting for them, but also trying to con Better Together to change their campaigning strategy.

Quite rightly, the Better Together Campaign has challenged many of the Yes Campaign’s lies and u-turns, and shown that there is no sensible basis for separation at all.

After months of disproving and dismantling every “yes” argument, the Nat whiners have decided to change tact and deflect from this by complaining that the “No” campaign is too negative.

While some unionists appear to have accepted that assertion and are set to focus only on selling the good things about the Union, I believe firmly that they cannot stop also challenging the relentless Yes campaign’s questionable claims and assertions.

Take this example of one of the latest opinion polls, from the Panelbase website inaccurately reporting that the Yes campaign are now polling circa 40%.

This is a report in the Scotsman

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-panelbase-poll-boosts-yes-1-3347389

“A total of 40% of Scots say they will vote Yes, according to the poll conducted by Panelbase for Newsnet Scotland. That figure is just 5% behind those who say they will vote No. There are still 15% of Scots who are undecided, according to the poll.

The five-point gap is down from 12 points on a previous Panelbase poll last month which had Yes on 37%, with No on 49%.

The latest poll suggests that excluding ‘don’t knows’, support for Yes has reached 47% with No on 53%. The results suggest a swing of just three points is needed to put Yes ahead in September.”


Actually the Panelbase poll did not say that in the slightest

The actual poll percentage for “Yes” was 38%, but the results show a Raw figure, and also a weighted figure. Guess which figure was issued in the Press Release to Reuters from the nationalist website newsnet Scotland? Yes, that would be the weighted one.

http://www.panelbase.com/media/polls/NewsnetScotlandPollv3.pdf

It should also be noted that excluding “don’t knows” skews the figures

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/faq-dont-knows


Notice that the Panelbase poll also suggest that of those interviewed 35% voted SNP at the last election. Remember that the SNP actually returned 22% of the vote at the last election.
Note also that Panelbase have conducted polls for nationalist leaning websites, including extremists “Wings Over Scotland”.

The polls are not random, and are asked of the same skewed audience each time

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/panelbase-bans-new-members-from-independence-polls-1-3080830

I’d suggest that the relatively static 35-38% Yes figure returned in most polls is far more accurate, but the electorate in Scotland should be made aware of facts and facts only, negative or not

Bill

It’s all about The Rangers

Sometimes I think that its Rangers who are keeping the fires burning of the Scottish media.

Of course, they are also joined by Channel 4 stooge Alex Thomson, who seems to be intent on sacrificing his own diminishing credibility to keep some bloggers tarred with a sectarian brush happy, and Graham Spiers, who has done a complete u turn against the Offensive Behaviour at football Act, despite being one of the main driving forces for it happening, and indeed advocating that thought crime should be punished.

In theory, I’d like us Rangers fans to be in a position to ignore these two cretins, and focus on the very pressing matters with the Rangers board, Dave King, and various supporters groups keen to gain a shareholding backed voice within the club but I have to say it gave me great pleasure to see Thomson ridiculed on Twitter on his latest claims that Rangers were set to announce Administration yesterday.

Spiers has largely escaped the wrath of the support and can count himself lucky that Thomson won clown of the day and deflected attention away from the disgusting move by Celtic to rescind the Act, now that the Act has shone a light on the dark republican underbelly of the Celtic support.

After decades of campaigning against “bigotry” and “sectarianism” it seems that the campaigners didn’t sit on some moral high ground at all, but were instead only seeking a licence for Celtic fans to do as they wish, while Rangers fans get jailed for challenging Irish Republicanism and support for racist terrorist groups.

Elsewhere the club’s financial woes keep the Daily Record in business as Dave King prepares to fly to the UK amidst some smoke and mirrors from the Rangers boardroom in a propaganda battle for the hearts and minds of the Rangers support.

While I noticed a poll on Vanguard Bears that only 3% of their members polled supported the current board, the relatively high percentage willing to give Graham Wallace a chance was something I agreed with, probably until this morning, when it became apparent that Sandy Easdale had misled supporters on Sky Sports News by claiming that Dave King had not offered to invest in the club.

Graham Wallace is a very credible board figure, who has a very impressive CV of the kind of level a Rangers CEO should have, but he must feel that he is surrounded by sharks and piranhas in murky boardroom waters, and he will need to assert his authority in that boardroom before his very impressive CV becomes tarnished.

I suspect that Wallace will need to bring forward his 120 Day review if he has any chance of maintaining the levels of confidence that many have in him,

Let me be clear, I have no agenda for any of the competing fan groups, or even for King, but for the club to be stabilised by someone capable of doing so, and structured in such a fashion that trust is earned and maintained in those running the club, and that we have a believable plan to return to the top of the Premier league within 3 years.

Will that happen under Wallace? Will it happen under King?

Frankly, until either of them tell us in detail how they will get there I can’t judge.

All I do know is that there needs to be a relatively quick resolution to this battle in order for the fans to believe the club are on the right track – whether it be through one side gaining control, or through some happy medium where both “sides” join forces for the good of the club.

Time will tell.

Bill