andy steel
-
Posts
4,054 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by andy steel
-
Yesterday's board meeting (CG 'stands down' and wants to sell shares)
andy steel replied to Frankie's topic in Rangers Chat
I must say, BH, you're a real asset to the forum. Thanks for your insight! -
It's hard to see how any settlement could be reached, in the short term anyway. So much needs to happen for closure: the club would have to be stable, in the boardroom and on the pitch (and dugout); from that, leaking to the media at the level we've seen would also have to stop, for at the moment sundry outlets know all they need do is reach for the mobile and chances are their source will give them yet another story; rapprochement would have to be gained with the governing bodies, so that we fight on one front only; while, in the nature of things, favoured outlets would need to be cultivated in order to spike those less favoured. I mean, this is going to take years, not months.
-
The best evidence that Traynor is doing something right is the continued bitter sniping from BBC Scotland.
-
Leggat - GREEN REVEALS MYSTERIOUS AHMAD LINK TO WHYTE SHARES
andy steel replied to ian1964's topic in Rangers Chat
Pretty apt description of that piece. Does it actually say anything? -
The Summer 2013 Transfers and Rumours Thread
andy steel replied to der Berliner's topic in Rangers Chat
'Tler! One for the 80's generation, there.
-
Who's that, then? I was puzzled at the reference to bloggers closely aligned with the club - is it Andy Goram or someone?
-
Complaints over Ibrox advert sparks watchdog review - Herald
andy steel replied to True_Ger_1872's topic in Rangers Chat
Poor old Timotei...I'd hate to be that sad, and I speak as one with over a hundred articles and 10,000 posts on Rangers forums to my name! -
Certainly explains his performances.
-
Realistic outcome of shares split 'For Dummies'?
andy steel replied to Anchorman's topic in Rangers Chat
That's hugely unfair. If McColl had been shouting all over the media, like the rest of them, I'd have little faith in him. It's mainly the professional way he has called for an EGM and put forward at least one completely reliable name which earns him my worthles backing atm. -
Since we're micro-examining the bold Tom, I'd say he's fallen victim to the need fore constant comment on all things Rangers, added to the lack of clear detail coming out the club. In Scotland today, there's a version of Dr Moreau's law: 'Two legs good! Four legs bad!' which runs 'Rangers bad! Anyone else good!' and Tom fell into that trap, I think, over re-construction, when he lambasted Longmuir for not delivering a meek SFL into the hands of the SPL, and decided (without a scrap of evidence) that it was Rangers which was at fault, either itself or because Longmuir was a great big closet Hun. Hopefully the worst of the knee-jerk rubbish has passed and some sanity may return (excepting the intellectually challenged, like Spence) and English can get back to poking a cynical stick at the game, which it sorely needs. I mean, compare him with the 'Um ur a man of the street' Keith Jackson and his God-awful, strident pontificating: I doubt if he even knows he disappeared up his own arsehole years ago. At least we can still see Tom's head and shoulders, poking out the regulation journalistic rectum: we should held haul him out, rather than shove him further up.
-
Easdale is a Rangers man. McColl is a Rangers man. I've looked at what both are doing, where both have come from, and decided which looks like a solid, hard-nosed plan for starting the long process of getting the club onto an even keel and which looks like a child shouting that it isny fair. Harsh though it may seem, investing his money doesn't automatically make Easdale the better option.
-
Because, like most people, he wouldn't trust you or the rest of the Keystone Kops with a penny.
-
No coincidence this lad has a Blue top on.
-
Unless the much vaunted institutional investors are as fly by night as Cr**g Wh**e there's only one outcome. As it stands, they're going to receive nothing by way of return from the financial wreck the club is; with McColl's reputation and Blin's know-how, they stand to get a return, although further down the line, no doubt, than they've been led to believe. For the II's to vote against this they'd need to be out of their minds.
-
It's not that bad - mostly castigating the current and previous incumbents for being populist and too quick to spend. There's holes in the piece, mostly annoyance that McColl & Blin haven't been coming across with the good to journos in the same way Paul Murray would, but its hard to argue with the overall point. I think those not reading it would find it not that bad, apart from the hilarious 'the BBC isn't relentlessly negative toward Rangers' bit.
-
This bit from the club statement yesterday got me thinking this morning: That's just exactly what the club DOES need to be doing, at least in the short to medium term. Fans cannot trust any media outlet at the moment, but sad to say we can't trust the official club channels either given the contradictory stories which emerge from week to week or even day to day. We're desperate for at least one source which we can rely on for facts and honesty. The natural body Brits turn to for that, the BBC, long since became a laughing stock when it came to covering Rangers to the point where even the most vicious caricature fails to reflect the imbalance and blatant untruths they peddle: while newspapers are locked in a last ditch battle to stay alive and see Rangers as good meat, with any sort of basis on accuracy a long way behind big headlines. The support is split down to the level of the atom on the issue of bloggers and websites, with agendas here and agendas there. I think this reflects both the traditional independence of mind of the Rangers fan; the traditional thrawn nature of the Rangers fan (surely Europe's most moany fans since time immemorial); and the unwise decision of some many bloggers and sites to bring their baggage along for the journey. On that point, the much desired Unified Theory of Supporters' Representation will only come along, I think, when a group of fans who eschew any mention of the baggage comes forward. Anything else just creates division - avoiding which is hard enough when walking the tightrope that is representing people who pretty much feel they can represent themselves! But back to Rangers and reacting to the media fenzy around the club. It may piss people off who would have to deal with it, but two or three months of reliably demolishing fantasy would create a reputation for honesty and integrity. There is the knotty issue of being bullshitted from within, but should that happen an apology with a fairly clear explanation of why would limit the damage. If this sounds a bit like a job application, well it probably is. I think many many fans would be willing to crawl over glass on their knees to help the club they love, for minimum wage too (if Charles is reading). There's no shortage either of people on this board alone whose prose would put any of the current crop of mediocrity 'writing' for the papers to shame, if they had any. We have no one else to turn to at the minute. If even the club aren't going to bother themselves dealing with the cobblers which attached itself to our ankles, we really are in for it. Rather than disdaining to deal with this shit, it offers the club a chance to build a reputation. Will it take it?
-
Not the guy from Vanguard Bears, surely?
-
At least the wheels are moving. In what direction, mind you, Gawd knows.
-
Fair point, but I stand by my assertion that a membership scheme - while attractive - has to be able to stand alone simply as an expression of your pride in your team. Sticking on benefits like discounts (which I think Tannochside Bear pointed out would likely have the club running for the hills anyway) or golf days seem like transient awards which could be a bit 'here today, gone tomorrow'. I think most of us would be willing to shell out a small amount to be able to whip out their Blue Card at every opportunity. Personally I don't need anything else than the sense of belonging a bit more to Rangers and, as I've said, the thought of some candidates getting into the board room gives me the shivers.
-
You'd have to be touched to pay £25,000 for a round of golf with the Motherwell FC squad.
-
Hurray, something I can object to that everyone else likes. I don't think there's any point expecting anything more than the cachet of being a Rangers Member for your tenner (or whatever). Maybe a cheap repro club tie for AGM's or something but that would be about it. That said I'd be willing to pay because I am a sucker. Someone mentioned avoiding elitism but I'm going to wade in and say we need a bit of elitism, because some of the likely candidates for office would be liable to make John Brown look like the model of sober public speaking, should they get a platform.
-
I didn't trust them much, but I had no objection to them making a wedge as long as they were putting the boot into the SFA et al. I really needed that at the time. I certainly do object to what looks increasingly like corrupted levels of self interest.
-
Yes! Exactly. And we don't actually need to see the colour of McColl or anyone else's money for that to happen. There's lots of steps to be taken before everything is hunky dory at Ibrox and anyone who came out and said 'I can have things running smoothly by Christmas' would make me more nervous than someone or a group who say, jeez louise, what a shambles! EGM, let's see the figures, let's have a vote. As Lena Martell almost said, one step at a time. Prior's name has appeared again but I don't give him that much credence. If you invest in a company whose share price is collapsing, and Scotland's richest man and (apparently) Scotland's best known accountant want to get in about your investment and get it in shape, it's an odd response to run to the Record complaining they don't have enough shares. As always I must say I am supremely ignorant of all such goings-on but on the face of it, he seems like a bit of a wally.
-
To my uneducated eyes none of these doubts about McColl or Blin make sense. Look at the boxes they tick - We want Rangers fans, if possible, and they are; We want successful businessmen, and they are; We want reputable businessmen, and they are; We don't want to go down the SDM road, and they won't; We don't want leaks to the media all the time, and they haven't. I think that wanting to know their plans down to a T would be great but not that realistic; from the little that I followed the business pages back in the late 80's, 90's and 00's, those hot years of take-overs, not many companies or individuals laid out in absolute detail their future plans (with the exception, almost always, of laying off staff). It may be annoying but these guys did not get where they are by making too many wrong moves and if they think an EGM, a boardroom clear out and thorough corporate governance ahead of 'here, Charles, have £14m to fuck off' is the way to go then I can buy that. We're not going to get ideal, we will have to go with the best available.
-
That RM has gone nuts....<clears throat>. Wasn't very funny first time around, either.
