These People are NOT liberal

I’ve seen a lot of anger over Graham Spiers’ latest attention seeking column defending the Official Celtic fan groups campaign to chart the IRA anthem “Roll of Honour”

This vile song has been described in great detail on The Rangers Standard, and to a lesser extent on Vanguard Bears, so I certainly won’t be repeating the lyrics here, but I will stress that it is a song that praises Republican terrorists

http://www.therangersstandard.co.uk/index.php/articles/current-affairs/309-roll-of-dishonour-celtic-s-shame

Spiers surprises no one with his defence of such a disgusting homage to the Anti British Racists, bigots and killers of the “Brits Out” era of the Provos and INLA.

Of course, he dresses up his defence of The Green Brigade, and “Fans Against Criminalisation” as some kind of uber liberal approach to free speech, with some disingenuous waffle about “The Irish Question” thrown in to try and justify not being able to take up a stance against murdering bigots and gangsters.

Taking up a liberal stance inconsistently though exposes him as having an agenda following years of distinctly non liberal posturing and campaigning against Rangers songbook

He’s as transparent as cling film

He’s also presumably free to write whatever provo-cative filth riles decent thinking people in Scotland, therefor The Herald is equally culpable for allowing publication, just a few days after reporting Celtic fans “success” at having Roll of Honour charted.

I monitored a number of Rangers fans challenging Herald editor Magnus Llewellin last week on that disgraceful front page and he failed to reply.

This further insult to the Rangers support from Graham Spiers in the same newspaper, should serve as a reminder to Rangers fans, and to decent people across Scotland that this newspaper should be shunned, and it’s editor told why it is being shunned. If you are going to stop buying the newspaper (better late than never), then you have a duty to tell the editor why. For good measure you should tell the regional MD of Newsquest Tim Blott why you are no longer buying his product.

This is not a job for someone else. This is a job for me, and you. All of you.

During Llewellin’s time as Deputy Editor and then Editor he has overseen a drastic reduction in circulation and income. The Herald’s circulation is in the region of 40k, down by 7k in the year, and only further reductions will reverse their disregard for decent people in Scotland.

Magnus.llewellin@heraldandtimes.co.uk

Tim.blott@newsquest.co.uk

As Spiers was writing his piece, Glasgow University students were celebrating the election of Edward Snowdon as Rector. It seems that joining the military, then putting your colleagues and your country at risk of terrorist attack is something to celebrate in Glasgow

There is something fundamentally wrong that the University can accept such a candidate, but I for one was not surprised. If they can employ and defend Jeanette Findlay, for her outspoken support of Irish Republicanism, then they too are worthy of scrutiny.

I don’t doubt there are increasing numbers who feel that the wrongs in this country need to be addressed, and are of the view that none of Scotland’s political elite or media establishment represent the majority

It is for this reason that I have started writing some non football content for http://thescottishunionist.wordpress.com/, and I’d suggest my readers pop over to a site that I feel could be the beginnings of something very special

Bill.

What Happened To This?

From the Herald

13 Dec 2013

Perhaps it's just the headline that was misleading.

Rangers investor to crack Blue Pitch and Margarita mystery

Greig Cameron
Deputy Business Editor
Friday 13 December 2013
A RANGERS shareholder with decades of experience in fund management has begun high-powered moves to reveal the identities of the people behind the secretive Blue Pitch Holdings and Margarita Funds.

The investment professional, who asked not to be named, is a long-standing season ticket holder at Ibrox, said he has consulted a "mainstream" law firm in London to investigate the options available.

He intends to take the matter further down the legal route if the board at Rangers International Football Club (RIFC) are unable to provide answers.

He said he wanted to know what exact efforts the current board (RIFC) has made to uncover who is behind Margarita and Blue Pitch.

He said: "I am getting a bit irritated with this obscurity about Blue Pitch and Margarita.

"If [the board] say we don't know then I want them to make a public report saying that. If they do know who is behind it they should be telling us.

"I think the fans really need to know the identities of the people behind these holdings. That is only fair."

Blue Pitch has four million shares in RIFC, equivalent to more than 6% of the share capital, with Margarita holding 2.6 million, or 3.6%.

Both are believed to be backing the current regime at the RIFC annual general meeting on December 19.

Shareholders are being asked to vote at the AGM whether to retain chairman David Somers, chief executive Graham Wallace, finance director Brian Stockbridge and non-executive director Norman Crighton.

Along with several other resolutions there will also be votes on whether to accept Malcolm Murray, Paul Murray, Alex Wilson and Scott Murdoch.

The fund manager indicated he will pursue the identities of Blue Pitch and Margarita regardless of how the AGM turns out.

He said he would like to have access to the latest financial incomings and outgoings at RIFC and see details of commercial contracts.

The possibility of disenfranchising secretive shareholders was raised last month by former RIFC chairman Malcolm Murray.

That option is thought to relate to a section of the Companies Act 2006 which states a company has the right to know the beneficial owners of shares held in nominee accounts.

A company has to maintain a register of such interests which must be available for shareholders to see.

If that is not made available one possibility is for the voting rights of the shares to be suspended

R.E.S.P.E.C.T

One of the most irritating aspects of Rangers troubles in the last 2 years has been a culture within the club, and of people who should know better, to fail to communicate the truth to the Rangers support.

I’m sure most Rangers fans will join me in asking that senior officials at the club embrace a new dawn, and endeavour to tell us the truth at all times. That should also apply to footballing management, and friends of the footballing management.

With the recent departure of Brian Stockbridge from the club, there at least is hope within the Rangers support that the business end of the club is being cleansed with a new transparency on its way under the leadership of Graham Wallace.

Is it too much to ask that the footballing side apply the same approach?

As Rangers players trundled off the field on Saturday, lucky to have secured three points against part time Arbroath, I’m told that Manager Ally McCoist welcomed the players back in to the tunnel with words of congratulation for a great performance.

Bear in mind please that his friends in the media have for the last week been telling us how good he is, how good the coaching staff are, and how good their preparation is among many superlatives.

Are they delusional, or are they knowingly lying to us, to support their friend?

Loyalty is an admirable trait, and something sadly lacking in modern day football, however, is loyalty to Ally McCoist more important than loyalty to the Rangers support? Is loyalty to an agenda to attack the board more important than telling the truth?

This Rangers side is an expensively assembled one, and is in fact the second most expensive in Scottish Football

Therefor we should expect that the football be of comparable or superior quality to all Premiership sides and far superior to anything in our division

Can any Rangers fan put their hand on their heart and state they believe this is the case?

I know the events of the last three years have been distressing and that they can cloud the memory somewhat, but can any of us really look at this expensive side, and see any of these players controlling matches in the Premiership as Rangers trounce Celtic to the title?

After all, haven’t we been told that the reason the squad is so expensive is so that we can compete on our return to the top table, and compete for the cups?

If this current squad is only a transitional one that has to be bolstered by significant investment once again on return to the top flight, it begs the question – Will Ally McCoist need to spend multiple amounts more than Celtic just to compete with them?

I’m sorry I’m just not buying any of the superlatives, or even the seemingly reluctant approval of Richard Wilson in the Herald, or the loyalty to McCoist on Follow Follow from those who just happen to be part of the “Spivs Out” movement.

Rangers have missed a golden opportunity to shape a young (and inexpensive) exciting side who could have had a wealth of experience on Rangers return to the top. Much of that is attributable to Ally McCoist, who has chosen to fill his squad with numbers, “experience”, and dodgy foreigners, then leave the supporters under no illusion about what his footballing outlook is by picking sides full of the same. Every week.

Of course, he will point to Rangers scouting being cut, and blame Charles Green or Craig Mather, but ignore the fact that perhaps they could have allocated more resource to it if he demonstrated a real desire and ability to build his squad using youth, and spent less money on “experience”.

As Graham Wallace works his way through the legacy of decades of mismanagement throughout the whole Rangers business, he would be foolish to ignore the beating heart of the business that drives everything else, ie the football side.

If he doesn’t then he’s firefighting and missing a golden opportunity to make changes while we still can.

Bill

The Fog Reappears

Just when you think there is light at the end of the tunnel in this Rangers saga, the fog has once more enveloped the club, as much needed cost cutting measures within Ibrox have been resisted by Ally McCoist and his squad, and yet another propaganda war started between the current board, and prominent Rangers shareholders including Alex Wilson and Dave King.

It’s now the world’s worst secret that one of the ideas mooted by CEO Graham Wallace to Ally McCoist and Lee McCulloch at a meeting was that the 1st team squad accept a 15% cut in wages.

Unsurprisingly, “the players” , who were represented at the meeting by McCulloch, are believed to have rejected the idea out of hand

Sadly, in this circus we call Ibrox, that confidential discussion was reported in the Daily Record the next day, triggering a new wave of leaks from the club clearly released to undermine McCoist, including a copy of the training schedule for this week, which I won’t reproduce here but showed that there is a fine line in football between “professional” and “part time”, if time on the training field is anything to do with it

Next up was the embarrassing revelation that the players were lording it up in a hotel as preparation for the Forfar match.

With McCoist defending the decision shortly after, it was clear he was at loggerheads with the board

This board, or at least someone connected to it, obviously has little respect for McCoist, and the next leak, if true, detailed what appeared to be an internal Rangers email from in 2012 discussing McCoist’s salary demands, suggesting some rather distasteful manouvering over a suggested cut from former CEO Charles Green and current FD Brian Stockbridge, where McCoist is described as accepting a pay cut to 600k, then asking for a shortfall to be paid back to him.

It certainly didn’t show McCoist in the best light, and I’m sure that many other Rangers fans hoped that McCoist’s media offensive against the board this week would include a denial of the suggestions in the email, or an apology if the contents were true. To date we’ve had neither.

With the board’s offensive done, it is now the turn of defenders of McCoist, and attackers of the board to return with two different angles.

Defeated board nominee Alex Wilson has attacked the board for not leading by example and cutting the inflated executive salaries, while addressing the financial outgoings of the non- footballing side of the business. While I may have had issues with some of the vague statements from the nominees in the lead up to the AGM, this statement is incisive and fully justified.

Graham Wallace was asked the question by Tom English why the Executives weren’t leading by example, and Wilson asks the question again, because Wallace’s answer to English was disingenuous. He suggested that the salary review was across the business, however it is noted that there is no detail of any suggested cuts in other areas

Wallace, and the board, if embarking on a business wide cost cutting exercise have been cack handed and naïve in their approach, and are at this point, looking distinctly blindsided in their decision to discuss players’ salaries before concluding (or embarking on) the review of the non-playing business.

They should have been aware that with players and media friendly staff still friendly with those viewed as Anti board, it would not have been kept secret
They have not been helped that their own leaks, particularly about McCoist’s alleged salary manouvering, or the players’ training schedule have been confined to blogs and Rangers fan sites, rather than mainstream media.

Jack Irvine may be vindictive and “not to be messed with”, but if he is charged with blackening Ally McCoist’s name and turning the support against him in this latest propaganda war, then he is failing miserably.

As Dave King steps in with his own view this morning that the club should not be cutting costs, but should be investing in the team to compete in the Premiership when we get there, you begin to wonder if the credibility he has, given his genuine financial capability, is in danger of collapsing as he fails to recognise the deficit the club is facing with no additional revenue or investment to fill that gap,

Wallace has spoken previously about establishing sustainability before seeking investment, while King believes the investment is more urgent.

The issue of King’s investment proposal relying on existing shareholders diluting their shareholding if not investing more cash, while someone else invests in to the club is a sticking point, as my understanding is that current major shareholders are not keen to have their shareholding diluted. To those who paid 70p a share, or market value, rather than 1p per share, this and share value matters.

I’m no expert, but having the board at loggerheads with King, and having the manager conspiring against the board, and them conspiring against the manager is not a good place to be.

Meanwhile the club is still in deficit, with reserves dwindling, and no immediate signs of investment

My view is that this is the time for compromise between King and the current board, to ensure that there is a hybrid approach that suits everyone.

Perhaps the only reservation I have is that the size of the Rangers squad, and the size of our players budget to turnover ratio may be in the region of 30% as widely reported in McCoist’s defence, but that does not include a not insignificant sum for approximately 30 other registered players at Ibrox. 56 players is too much, and there is evidence of quantity over quality, so McCoist has to accept that his forays into the transfer market on behalf of the club are not returning best value for money, and he must show that there is both an acknowledgement of that, and a willingness to remedy it, or he is not the man to take the club forward

There is talking to be done at Ibrox, and some of it needs to be done privately, but if there is no “hands up I made an error” moment from any of the parties involved, then I fear for the future.

Bill.

The Wonderful World of Propaganda

As Rangers fan David Limond contemplates his actions in prison, he will no doubt regret pissing so many Rangers fans off over the last couple of years with his antics.
With a mouth bigger than the Clyde tunnel, and a bizarre idea that the laws of the land didn’t apply to him it was inevitable that he would land himself in trouble with the law.

So, as Rangers fans have decided against taking on various journalists and their hangers on due to his toxicity, the great shame is that his stupidity has allowed the Rangers support to be tarnished by his actions.

While I have little sympathy for “Limmy”, I have to take issue with some of the nonsense written in the last couple of days, in the Scottish media, and also the Press Gazette in London about Angela Haggerty, Phil MacGiollabhain, and Alex Thomson of Channel 4. I also have to take issue with the Scottish media’s ignorance of abuse on social media of Rangers players, and the apparently different sentencing used in social media abuse cases.

In the Daily Record’s first report of Limond’s indiscretions, it quotes both Haggerty and Phil Mac Giollabhain, with absolutely no recognition of Mac Giollabhain’s bigoted past mentioned.
It should be noted that the book Haggerty edited was not an objective analysis of Rangers financial troubles, but a hate filled book written in a vile tone.

Did Limond overstep the mark with his sectarian comments? Absolutely.
Was his target an innocent shrinking violet without a sectarian bone in her body?

With Haggerty yesterday promoting Sectarian IRA publication An Poblacht I’d suggest that you can draw your own conclusions

http://i43.tinypic.com/5m0o6s.jpg

This blog highlights why the IRA were and are sectarian

http://truthonsectarianism.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/ira-are-sectarian.html

MacGiollabhain of course was a writer for said IRA publication, and also co founder of another IRA publication the talfanzine. Unforgettably MacGiollabhain’s book serialisation was pulled from the Sun after some Rangers fans sent copies of some of his previous blogs to the newspaper. A shocked Editor pulled his serialisation and ran an editorial stating that MacGiollabhain was “tarred with a sectarian brush”

As Haggerty and co line up to have a kick at the whole Rangers support for the behaviour of Limond, it is noticeable that Macgiollabhain’s friends Thomson, De Long of the NUJ, and Roy Greenslade are all actively promoting the tired old Rangers are Racist line, despite Haggerty being as Scottish as Limond. It certainly raises questions as to how the judge could decide calling Haggerty a “taig” was Racist. Sectarian? Yes. Racist? How?

MacgiollaBhain has unsurprisingly got in on the act of attacking the wider Rangers support, calling in some quotes and favours from long time collaborators Alex Thomson and Roy Greenslade

Greenslade, is not an objective voice on anything Rangers related

http://williampoole.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/wp-archives-mar-12-2012-roy-greenslade.html


Alex Toxic Thomson is hardly the most reliable “journalist” to comment, given his constant support for MacGiollabhain. How far removed from Phil do you need to be to not be tarred with a sectarian brush?

http://williampoole.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/wp-archives-14-oct-2012-toxic-thomson.html

http://williampoole.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/wp-archives-april-12-useful-idiots.html

http://williampoole.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/wp-archives-april-12-glasgow-toughest.html

http://williampoole.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/wp-archives-14-aug-2012-alex-thomson.html

http://williampoole.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/wp-archives-05-oct-2012-toxic-tomos.html

The Press Gazette report is being widely touted as a voice of reason on the subject, and presumably Dublin born writer and news editor Darren Boyle is another friend of the toxic network of Rangers haters.

The simple fact is that Limond has been punished, and while the sentence is harsh, he can have no complaints about the verdict.

What is most interesting is that the type of provocative language and prose written by MacGiollabhain goes unpunished, while Limond finds himself in the clink.

The same week that Limond was sentenced to 6 months for some online abuse, former Celtic player Paul McGowan was sentenced to 130 hours community service for assaulting a police officer, despite it being his second conviction for such an offence. It seems that calling people names is now worse in Scotland than assaulting people.

Fact is, the mainstream media in Scotland wouldn’t touch MacGiollabhain or Haggerty with a bargepole, despite the sympathetic tone of the reports attacking Limond. They know only too well that employing either of them would significantly damage their circulation, and damage their already fragile reputations.

Darren Boyle also finds himself on the fringes of meaningful employment working for the Press Gazette, although journalists who read the publication should be made aware of the type of company he is keeping

Frankly, it wouldn’t surprise me if Roy Greenslade of the Guardian website found himself in a Brian McNally redundancy situation. McNally displayed all the same traits with an added cockiness of thinking he had a mainstream platform for his agenda. He didn’t. Maybe Republican Roy will learn the same lesson. The people of Britain don’t want to be force fed extremist propaganda, no matter what “side” it comes from.

The People of Scotland should not tolerate that Limond can get 6 months in prison, while vile filth like Ciaran Wallace walks free, or Paul McGowan punches police officers without jail time, and they shouldn’t tolerate that the press won’t point out that imbalance, but will instead be part of it. Either they should all get jailed, or none of them should.

The only people who can affect change are you and me. Make your feelings known and write to your MSPs, MPs and newspapers.
If you think that is futile, then you underestimate the power you have.

Bill.

The Double Whammy

Today the Nominee Directors have stepped up their communication with the support through interviews with blogger Chris Graham, of the CRo and TRS websites.

While there are lots of similarities between the interviews, it has to be seen as a step change that both Wilson and Murdoch are stepping out of the shadows and a number of secret meetings with a small number of supporters, and answering questions publicly.

What is a tad unfortunate is the stage managed propaganda evident from both interviews and the distinct lack of detail from either nominee.

Murdoch’s interview is very negative indeed, and the subject matter is most definitely everyone else associated to Rangers apart from him. Now that could be down to Graham, or some CRo editing, but there is absolutely nothing in terms of substance as to what he feels he personally can bring to the board, or what the plans of the nominees are to stabilise financial performance of the PLC business that runs Rangers.

Instead, what we see is oft repeated negative accusations about Brian Stockbridge and Jack Irvine.

My issue with this is that I already distrust these two and wish them out. What I am now looking for is the nominees to give it a rest on telling us what we already know, and start telling us in detail how they will recover the business

Wilson’s interview is marginally better than Murdoch’s, with an interesting question that graham asks him (but not Murdoch)

Assuming you are successful in being appointed to the board, is there more you can say on specific plans for funding or how the club would be run? Is it possible to be more specific?

AW - We know how we want to operate but what we find when we get in there is impossible to say. When we lift the lid on it we have no idea what is going to come out. What worries us is that there is a cash outflow which has not been explained, so we need to look at what we have and then start to address it urgently. We can't say specifically who will invest. We have 3-4 people who are wealthy individuals who have approached us and said they will put money into the club if the board is trustworthy and clean. We've also had some of the institutions, who we can't name for reasons of confidentiality; tell us they will put more money in. We just can't put names into the public domain at this time as frustrating as that might be for people



Of course it’s a bit vague and unclear, given that we know that the nominees have been receiving detailed information on various transactions and contracts that Rangers have placed.
What that means is that either there is no business plan to recover the RIFC company, or that the nominees don’t wish to share their plans

The simplistic view is that, after excluding the “one off costs” published in the accounts, that RIFC are still trading at a loss.
Therefor there are limited options outside of fundraising to address that ongoing deficit.

These limited options are to either increase revenue, decrease expenditure, or both.

Without specific reference to these limited options , and how this would be tackled, it is difficult to get any confidence that the nominees would be able to make RIFC a break even business without investment or share issues.

I sincerely hope that the nominees will soon start to move their focus from voting off the current board to voting the nominees on.

For me that is what is required for any lingering doubters in the fan base to make their minds up

Bill

Smoke and Mirrors

As the Nominee directors posed for a photo shoot to sign a “Rangers Constitution” piece of propaganda yesterday it all seemed a little contrived, and desperate.

It’s worth recalling just what these pledges these nominated Directors make in detail

“1. We will never sell Ibrox Stadium. We will ring fence the asset to ensure this can never happen. This is our home and will always remain our home.”

This is a pledge we should all welcome, and pressure should be put on the current board to make a similar promise in print.

2. We are committed to fan representation on the board.

One can only hope that this process is fair and democratic and the whole Rangers support can openly vote for candidates. One also hopes that any Rangers supporter lucky enough to be elected is genuinely objective and inclusive.

3. No director including his/her family members
or close business associates should have
any financial interest in any contract involving
the club.

This should be a given

4. We will undertake to ensure that all executive director salaries and bonuses are approved by a Remuneration Committee and subject to market benchmarking.

This should also be a given

5. We will undertake to ensure that all shareholders are treated equally.

At this point it just looks like they are trying to pad out this “constitution” as it would look far too light with 5 points on it. What exactly do they mean here? Do they seriously wish us to believe that Joe Bloggs with one share will be treated the same as Jimmy Smith with 2M shares? Really? How?

6. We will undertake to ensure that there is total transparency in all the club’s affairs.

This seems like a very vague statement that cannot be quantified. Rangers are a PLC company who have to adhere to strict LSE Guidelines. How the requisitioners intend to fulfil that promise without breaching these guidelines should be explained in laymans language. Of course this should be in the interests of transparency

7. There will be no long term debt.

While all Rangers fans would agree that the club should never be exposed by its corporate shell’s banking activities, it would be silly to dismiss any opportunity to utilise any debt facility. This statement raises more questions than answers.

It assumes that the club will have to be operated at break even level immediately.

Therefor, given that the club is operating at a loss at the moment, even discounting the IPO transactions, what business plan do the nominees have to increase revenue and decrease expenditure in order to achieve that break even position?

While this “constitution” is largely a vision based series of pledges, what would be far more effective in convincing shareholders to vote them on to the board would be some tangible plans for how to firstly return the club to a sound financial footing, and how to build on that footing to grow the club.

Without such a solid plan, how can anyone have any confidence that there is any substance behind such vague statements?

8. All non executive directors fees are to be waived unless the club is in Europe.

What exactly do they mean by fees? Bonuses? Surely bonuses should be decided on appropriate performance targets? Some Rangers fans would question whether bonuses should ever be appropriate. I’d be wary that such a statement doesn’t stop the gravy train rolling in to the station when Rangers return to Europe at the precise time the team will need more investment.

What I would ask these nominees to do is cut the crap and start telling us how they will save the club.

They could start by telling fans’ groups intent on starving the club of its primary source of income that boycotting Rangers is counter-productive and will only damage the club.

I won’t hold my breath on any of the above happening.

Bill.