Follow Follow Rangers. Season 2023/24

[BawWatchin]

23 minutes ago, Pet Jeden said:

Now then, Bawatchin. Talking of teams that died.  Pot-Kettle. Glass houses and all that.  Tell me all about Hibernians' league placings in the early 1890s. I'll give you a tip. Don't bother looking, they weren't in any league, were they ? A proper break in history, eh. Not even shoe-horned into a lower league as a phoenix club.  Even got a new name.

So we only have about 100 years of history on The Rangers then?

[BawWatchin]

18 minutes ago, nsr said:

Let me know when the penny drops.

Seems the penny arcade is all out of pennies. Hopefully he comes back and plays again sometime.

Spoiler

Disclaimer: I really hope he doesn't come back.

 

[Pet Jeden]

3 minutes ago, BawWatchin said:

So we only have about 100 years of history on The Rangers then?

You do.

But you lose the deid Hibernians' Scottish Cup win, do you not ? 2016 was just Hibernian's 2nd win. Yes ?

[BawWatchin]

Just now, Pet Jeden said:

You do.

But you lose the deid Hibernians' Scottish Cup win, do you not ? 2016 was just Hibernian's 2nd win. Yes ?

Which would be 2 more wins that The Rangers yes?

Trying way too hard with that avatar btw.

[Pet Jeden]

4 minutes ago, BawWatchin said:

Which would be 2 more wins that The Rangers yes?

Trying way too hard with that avatar btw.

Yes. New Hibs have a better record than new Rangers.

FFS let the dog see the rabbit. I just signed up in the last 24 hours. I was actually looking for a picture of Hartley just before he  whipped the ball in at Zibbie's near post.in the semi.  My all-time favourite goal against the flair-meisters. But any Rudi pic is fine too.

[Pet Jeden]

9 minutes ago, BawWatchin said:

Which would be 2 more wins that The Rangers yes?

Trying way too hard with that avatar btw.

btw  - tell me, is that McPake standing disconsolately in the background ? Or Sparky ?

[Florentine_Pogen]

FFS let the dog see the rabbit. I just signed up in the last 24 hours.

And you’ve already hijacked this thread with your Hibs obsession.
[emoji122][emoji122][emoji122]

[Bairnardo]

Who is this Pat Jeden character? He seems like a dangerously unhinged individual tbh.

[velo army]

[Cerberus]

If Googly Eyes had legitimate concerns about this SPFL fella then he should have gone to them directly rather than get fat Jabba to write a statement on their website.

 

[Ken Fitlike]

It is strange how King is routinely described as 'Rangers chairman' - surely he is chairman of the holding company rather than the football club.

it is only fit and proper that we keep that in mind.

these 'angels on the head of a pin' distinctions may be important soon.

Again.

[Pet Jeden]

33 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

Who is this Pat Jeden character? He seems like a dangerously unhinged individual tbh.

Not unhinged. Not much, anyway. Just a newcomer with a feeling that, on this MacLennan matter, King might actually have a point for once.  Not the orthodox view in these parts, I know. But having read the SPFL non denial, "I can do no other"

Damn. That quote will  definitely have me found guilty of being an undercover Rangers man.

[thepundit]

1 hour ago, BawWatchin said:

So we only have about 100 years of history on The Rangers then?

If that 100 years is nothing but perennial failure it's not much to boast about, is it? 

As for Rangers, I don't care if they reformed every season so long as they were going right into the top division and trying to build a team good enough to be the best team in the country.

Anyways, I note Dempster has said Hibs last season and next season will have the biggest budget in the clubs history.  Not saying it's untrue but I'm highly sceptical they're paying out more money on transfer fee's and salaries than they were in say, the late 90's/early 2000's?

[NJ2]

Who is this Pat Jeden character? He seems like a dangerously unhinged individual tbh.

WTM’s new face, imo.

[bennett]

8 hours ago, Dons_1988 said:

 

In fairness, I don’t know if there is or isn’t a conflict of interest as I haven’t done enough research but...

- if the complaint is on the grounds that someone has a link to Celtic therefore must be pure evil by the way and hates all things rangers then that is Stone Age Scottish football thinking which i fucking hate. I could be proved wrong.

- it is clear that Dave king is making a very public statement of this for his own benefit. No reason why this couldn’t have been a private matter if the sole problem was a potential conflict of interest. I know you’re not naive enough not to realise that a lot of rangers statements are designed to rally the hard of thinking amongst the rangers support.

 

There is the question of disclosure, so far the spfl have failed address this adequately.

Peter Lawwell and Eric Riley have previously sat on the spfl board, no issues about that as clubs do have members on it. MacLennans position tho is meant to be independent and this needs looked in to (if it was fully disclosed).

 

11 minutes ago, Cerberus said:

If Googly Eyes had legitimate concerns about this SPFL fella then he should have gone to them directly rather than get fat Jabba to write a statement on their website.

 

That spfl statement..... has Jim Traynor jumped ship?

 

Seriously tho the spfl could clear this up pretty quickly, rather than looking like they've got something to hide.

[Florentine_Pogen]

SPFL statement:-
“Rather than attempt to communicate through the media, it is far more appropriate that any substantive issues are presented to the SPFL Board for careful and detailed consideration, based on a sound legal analysis of the facts.

To date, there has been no such representations to the SPFL Board and it notes Mr King’s statement of 30 May.
In its statement of 29 May, Rangers FC claimed a business relationship, existed between the SPFL chairman and minority shareholders in a SPFL Club, despite no evidence of such a relationship being presented.

There is no mention of the previously claimed business relationship in the 30 May statement.
In the 30 May statement the central allegation has now become that there was non-disclosure of the conflict that immediately arose when the SPFL Chairman accepted his appointment as a non-executive director of International News & Media PLC (IN&M plc). As with the 29 May statement, no detail was provided to support this allegation.

Within the space of about 24 hours two different and very public allegations have been made against the SPFL Chairman without, in either case, an approach first being made to the SPFL with concerns or seeking clarification.

The existence of a conflict of interest and the steps to be taken where it arises in a company context are set out in the Companies Act 2006. There has been no attempt to explain the factual basis of the claim that a conflict of interest, or circumstances which might reasonably have been regarded as likely to give rise to a conflict of interest, had arisen.

The facts are that minority shareholders in IN&M plc also hold minority shareholdings in Celtic plc, which in turn holds just over 2per cent of the shares in the SPFL.

The chairman of the SPFL holding a non-executive position on the board of IN&M plc, does not constitute the basis for the existence of a conflict of interest or of circumstances which might reasonably have been regarded as likely to give rise to a conflict of interest, on the part of the SPFL chairman.

The provisions relating to the criteria for appointment of a chairman of the SPFL and for an appointed chairman of the SPFL to be entitled to continue in office are set out in the Articles of Association of SPFL Limited. The chairman fulfilled those criteria on appointment and continues so to do.
As the above analysis shows, the SPFL chairman has behaved impeccably in this matter and in keeping with good corporate governance.”

Sounds like a “Go f*ck yirsel” to Ol’ Googly Eyes........[emoji7]

[The DA]

46 minutes ago, bennett said:

There is the question of disclosure, so far the spfl have failed address this adequately.

Peter Lawwell and Eric Riley have previously sat on the spfl board, no issues about that as clubs do have members on it. MacLennans position tho is meant to be independent and this needs looked in to (if it was fully disclosed).

 

That spfl statement..... has Jim Traynor jumped ship?

 

Seriously tho the spfl could clear this up pretty quickly, rather than looking like they've got something to hide.

The HAVE cleared it up.  Their statement said "To be definitive, a non-executive position on a PLC does not constitute a business relationship between that individual and a minority shareholder in the company and therefore no investigation is warranted."

What do you expect them to do?  Hold a 21-day investigation and come back to say, 'On second thoughts, maybe it does constitute a business relationship'?  What new evidence is going to change their stance?

FWIW if you're looking for a non-exec chairman, you're going to be hard-pushed to find someone from Scotland who's interested in football but doesn't support one of the 42 clubs.  Maybe someone from the Juniors?

[Lofarl]

39 minutes ago, The DA said:

The HAVE cleared it up.  Their statement said "To be definitive, a non-executive position on a PLC does not constitute a business relationship between that individual and a minority shareholder in the company and therefore no investigation is warranted."

What do you expect them to do?  Hold a 21-day investigation and come back to say, 'On second thoughts, maybe it does constitute a business relationship'?  What new evidence is going to change their stance?

FWIW if you're looking for a non-exec chairman, you're going to be hard-pushed to find someone from Scotland who's interested in football but doesn't support one of the 42 clubs.  Maybe someone from the Juniors?

Possibly.  But what school did this person go to?

[Bohemian]

Someone better wake Jabba up, a statement is needed.

[Pet Jeden]

SPFL statement:-
“Rather than attempt to communicate through the media, it is far more appropriate that any substantive issues are presented to the SPFL Board for careful and detailed consideration, based on a sound legal analysis of the facts.

Oooofffft. Is it just me, or does that sentence read as though the full facts might not have been drawn to the attention of the board  - but they will be soon ? Nowhere does it say that the board had potential conflict drawn to their attention, but they considered the matter and decided that it was not an issue. Have some other board members maybe been expressing annoyance ? If the SPFL board is like most boards, I think they will see it as THEIR job  to decide whether or not there is a potential conflict. It is for the Execs to report all the facts and legal advice - but it is for the board to decide.  Is the statement issued in the name of the whole board or just one Exec ? If it's the former, then they are clearly going to circle the wagons and fully endorse the process that was undertaken. If it's the latter, then there may be trouble ahead....

It is a real shame for MacLennan if he has drawn his relationships to the attention of the SPFL Exec but they have ommitted appraise the board.