Jump to content

 

 

Thinker

 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,735

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Thinker

  1. Thinker
    Well, in an ideal world we wouldn't have required a loan at all, but what's done is done I guess. The most pressing questions for me are: 1) How did we end up in the position of needing a loan? (i.e. Where did all our money go?) 2) How can we be sure that it's not going to happen again with the coming season's ST money. My suspicion is that much of the money was frittered away on A) poorly-tendered contracts etc. that are of far less benefit to the club than they are to the "external" (though probably not completely unconnected) party, and B) arrangement fees / commission for individuals such as Ahmad and Green. Basically I'm worried that the club was being run in a way that benefited influential individuals or their businesses / crony's businesses over the future of the club. So you can see how the loan deal would reinforce my suspicions - On the face of it, it seems to be a generous deal given from Rangers to our largest share holder. I'm no businessman either, but presenting a happy, "here's what you want to hear" plan for how the future should go is not going to be enough for me. I want to know what's being going wrong, and how they're going to prevent it from going wrong again. I should stress, I want to be proven wrong about my suspicions.
  2. Thinker
    Regardless of the 120 day review, that loan deal seems like bad business. Surely you can see how it would set alarm bells ringing for some people? Anyway, here's a genuine question for you STB: What information do you expect the review to contain? (What do you hope to see confirmed and what refuted? What are the areas which you hope to see clarified?)
  3. Thinker
    Still does. IMO the threads on RM are dominated by a vocal minority. What you read doesn't reflect the true consensus.
  4. Thinker
    I think criticism is aimed at hierarchical religions (which would include the CofE) rather than just specifically Catholicism. I can see the point - any institution (and I'm not just talking about religious ones) that has a non-democratically-elected authority figure who tells his/her followers what they ought to believe has the potential to mess with a country's democracy - especially when the institution in question runs its own educational facilities which attempt to instil obedience from a very early age. I don't think that it has anywhere near reached that point in Scotland, but on the other hand I absolutely hate the notion of indoctrination and I don't think you can classify faith schools as anything other than attempted indoctrination.
  5. Thinker
    I don't mind the final being at Ibrox (even though it makes more travel-sense for Easter Road or even Tanadice to be the venue). Take the money for hosting it, and if the Aberdeen fans cause any damage I'll be happy to see their club pay for the repairs.
  6. Thinker
    Searching for a negative on this story too I see. :fish:
  7. Thinker
    It only matters from an academic point of view, but I still hope it goes our way because our detractors will use a successful appeal to justify their previous antagonism. It seems like total crap to me though, since (as far as I can gather) HMRC can keep appealing until they win (keep rolling until they get a 6) whereas, if we (or our oldco, I should say) lose no-one will be in a position to fork out the cost of an appeal.
  8. Thinker
    I don't know what kind of proof you think you're ever going to get - a signed confession? It couldn't be more obvious what he's up to.
  9. Thinker
    I couldn't agree with you more. The fact that AT holds The Scottish Football Monitor up as a glowing example is almost as surprising as his criticism of something celtic-related. A quick glance shows that it's still 99% Rangers-obsessed anti-propaganda. No sign of any monitoring of the GBs recent antics or discussion of favourable co-op bank interest rates. With regards to his article, even though he has a bash at celtic, he still leads with a dig at us. Why should Rangers have anything to say about Limond? Is the club expected to respond to everything that any nutcase blogs, podcasts or posts on a message board? The same more or less goes for his comments about huddleboard (and, I suppose, Galloway's comments about RM a few months ago). It's not a football club's job to condemn the actions or refute the opinions of internet rockets. If people are posting offensive material via an unofficial medium then it's a job for the cops IMHO.
  10. Thinker
    I see what you're driving at but that's not really a fair analogy. The people down in the South-East who vote the Conservatives in still only have one vote each - equal in power to your's and mine. As others have pointed out in this thread, a weighted share-holders vote isn't true democracy. It's still perfectly legal though, and objecting to it won't get us anywhere.
  11. Thinker
    We've got between now and renewal time to judge the board's actions. If Wallace successfully does as he says he will, then I think we'll be moving in the right direction and I'll renew. If I'm still swithering I'll go match-by-match until I'm convinced. If some shocking revelation comes to light then (much as it pains me) I'll have to keep my money in my pocket. Of course, it's not beyond the realms of possibility that they might pull the wool over my eyes the way Charlie did, But they can only fool me for one season before I'll withdraw my support.
  12. Thinker
    The total (Votes For + Votes Against + Votes Withheld) varies from a low of 56,870,770 (Res 7) to a high of 57,487,304 (Res 5). That's out of a total issued of something like 65,100,000 (as near as I can figure out). I can't think why the totals aren't the same for all the resolutions, but the differences aren't significant. EDIT: Sorry, I see what you mean - the % of votes that were Withheld does vary pretty wildly. Hardly anyone Withheld their vote on the re-appointments yet between 6% and 12% did on the rest. Weird...
  13. Thinker
    You might successfully argue that PM isn't up to the standards we require (but you could for most of the existing board too). You might also say he's made a cock-up of his attempts to gain leverage through obtaining shares or convincing share holders. Fair enough. But to say he only cares about himself and not the club is just nonsense. Even Somers acknowledged that PM has selflessly stood by his convictions, just before the resolution vote.
  14. Thinker
    If anything, he/she pushed me further towards the opposite side of his argument. It's such a transparent attempt at manipulation and spin that it immediately sets alarm bells ringing. I think he's managed to sway a few of the more easily led folk on RM with his bawsburst account though. (I'd guess that's the same person - same style of posting anyway.)
  15. Thinker
    Reaper, I'd say.
  16. Thinker
    Thank f*ck!!
  17. Thinker
    Well, this was always a danger with the fans holding such a small percentage. I think it's still worthwhile to vote and let it be officially recorded how few of us actually support the institutional investors. Plus, there's still the possibility one of the blocks will have a change of heart.
  18. Thinker
    I'll chip in a question here too, since this kind of thing is alien to me as well: Is an attendance card plus ID (driving license) all that I need to vote, or should I dig out my share certificate too?
  19. Thinker
    I often wonder what would happen to Barca if Catalonia gained independence. Would they have to be content to monopolise a newly formed Catalonian league (which would be nearly as diddy as ours, leading to lower TV money, a poorer squad, lack of interest and probably ultimately render whatever humungous stadium they occupy unnecessary)? Or would they get to continue to duopolise the Spanish league even though it would be an unprecedented case of a team too big for it's own national league playing in someone else's, and would no doubt be met with chagrin by Atletico, Valencia, etc...
  20. Thinker
    The fact that they want Stockbridge and co to stay surely tells us something!
  21. Thinker
    All he has to do is say, "My annual income from Rangers is below £X" - where X is a value in the realms of sanity.
  22. Thinker
    It's the thread that's been side-tracked not you. The topic is winning streaks. That's the record we're gunning for.
  23. Thinker
    Aren't we over-estimating Reid here? He's no Lex Luthor - he doesn't exactly have a history of organisational competence. If he was charged with keeping a secret, some of the details would have escaped.
  24. Thinker
    Yeah, rightly or wrongly he's become a bit of a Mark Dingwall type figure. There has to be an acceptable alternative out there somewhere - someone who ticks the "Proven Business Ability", and "Rangers Comes First" boxes, but who hasn't tarnished his/her reputation by getting involved in mudslinging or previous failures.
  25. Thinker
    I'm happy for democracy to be enacted across the whole UK, and to cast my lot with the rest. You're portraying England (with no mention of Northern Ireland and Wales) as a single, separate entity which it plainly isn't - It's composed of regions effected by differing issues and with different voting habits. Some of them have much more in common with parts of Scotland than they do with each other. For example, the problems and aspirations of folks from the traditionally Labour voting urban areas of both Greater Manchester and Greater Glasgow are much more similar to each other than they are to those of either Conservative voting, rural East Anglia, or the Liberal voting Highlands and Islands. The Scotland / England border isn't the dividing line for me. I think we could probably keep this argument up indefinitely without agreeing and we're going round in circles somewhat, which can't be very entertaining for anyone else on the forum - so I'm going to sign off with these thoughts. We've obviously both looked at the question of independence and due to our differing circumstances come to different conclusions. Probably, I guess, due to the spread of my family I have a wider ranging view of what constitutes my country and who my compatriots are than you do. I feel a much stronger connection to those places down South where I regularly visit relatives than I do to, say, Aberdeen or Inverness and I don't want any political separation to change that. There are perfectly sensible, logical and ethical arguments both for and against independence; being for it doesn't make you a parochial England-basher, being against it doesn't mean you've been "got at" by scaremongers. I'll respect your point of view and I'm sure that you'll respect mine.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.