Thinker

The Easdale situation is a special case in that people are understandably not willing to give too much detail on any specific incidents. But in general I think a lot of posters too often state their opinion as fact, or their interpretation of a sketchy set of facts as "self-evident". Personally, I'd like to see a bit more explanation as to why some gersnetters have come to particular conclusions - not because I necessarily think they're wrong, but rather because I think it's unrealistic to expect folks to simply take another forum poster's word as gospel. (Particularly since often the only action being recommended in response to the information is to cancel season tickets.) I don't think pointing people in the direction of weighty documents and expecting them to pluck out the salient points for themselves is especially helpful either. A request for justification does not mean that aspersions are being cast, and if a poster really wants convince others on a vital but technical point, a bit of substantiation goes a long way.

There are plenty of ways to take money out of a football club which are perfectly legal. That doesn't mean to say they are in the long-term interests of the club or won't hamper success on the park. When comparing King to Green, it's a big Rangers fan with some shady financial history versus a guy with a reasonably clean business record (at least in terms of court appearances etc.) who is in it purely for the money. Weigh the pros and cons of each and who wins? Who's likely to do more for the club? Personally I'd say King.

IMO King's past record with the tax authorities (alleged or otherwise) scores against him as an owner but he seems to be the best option out there. An ideal candidate would be a dyed-in-the-wool Rangers fan with an excellent (and clean) record of running businesses. Given the choice of imperfect candidates what's better - a dodgy character with a genuine love for the club, or a successful businessman with no emotional attachment or interest in the long-term well being of RFC? It's a tough call. I've no idea how much the Easdales care about the club. I heard they were Morton fans, but not from any worthwhile source. As other have noted here, probably the more pertinent question is: Why has he been appointed? (Along with: Why were Cenkos dropped?)

If it's such a lost cause, what are you hoping to accomplish with your posts?

There are some good arguments being made - it's just a shame some people can't voice them without adopting a sneering, condescending "I'm right and you're a moron" attitude. Everyone on here cares passionately about the club. - but the facts are so sketchy (and often financially technical) that there are very few obvious conclusions to be drawn. I wish people would just accept that we're all in the dark to a certain degree, and we're all in it together.

Wouldn't it be fantastic if posters could just make their point rather than disparaging others?

Well, isn't it at least a possibility that the investors could decide to sell off a few players and other assets, line their pockets and sell up? Is that completely implausible? I'm not a doomsayer - I just think ideally the club shouldn't be left unguarded. When I locked the door to my house this morning it wasn't because I'm a doomsayer. It wasn't a crazy paranoid stretch of the imagination that led me to think "Maybe I should keep that secure." It's entirely possible that the people in power (especially now that an increased number are from the same camp) could pull a Freddy Shepherd and put their short term financial interest over the future of the club - the door is open for them to do that. What makes you so sure they won't?

There are a few things that those in power could do to allay our fears - it's the fact that they aren't doing so that concerns me. A bit more information on the financial situation would go down well, and wouldn't be that hard to produce. And having guys on the board who have both business acumen and are lifelong rangers supporters would be reassuring. We seem to be moving away from that though.

Then you have a very limited imagination.

Is that possible? Surely they'll have had to have gone through some sort of due diligence process before they took RIFC on.

They must at least be aware that Cenkos have ditched their RIFC NOMAD status. Given that (as I understand it) a change in nominated advisor is a pretty rare occurence, why would they volunteer for sloppy seconds?

So why would Strand Hanson jump on the opportunity to get a bit of the action?

What was at stake for Cenkos? Why would Strand Hanson Ltd feel any differently about things? I'm asking because I genuinely have no understanding of these matters.

So you can't imagine a scenario wherein the investors make a profit, cash in their chips, and leave the club in a worse state?

But, do you see my point about the potential conflict between investors' interests and the success of the club? How can we be sure the balance is going to be there?

The problem is that it would be very easy for the board of a football club to run it as a successful, profitable business in a completely legal and financially sensible manner without it being particularly successful on the park. Too much short-term profiteering drains a club's resources. I hope Green and his investors aren't going to do that, but I have no way of knowing that they won't. We need some people at the top who are willing to forgo the fast buck in favour of the future of the club - hence the desire by some for "rangers men".

Surely there must be a point when you would consider the profits being made too high though. What do you think is an acceptable figure, and what would the absolute upper limit be?

I think your right about the real rangers men. Aren't you concerned about the various people / investment groups taking profit out of the club though?

What do you make of it? Long-term, I mean.

To me this seems like a Yes / No (take your pick) referendum campaigner addressing his team: "Our stance on independence is clearly the correct one so there's no need for any posters, TV slots or any of that stuff. If the public vote for the other guy then hell mend them - they'll just have to live with the consequences."

That seems a touch defeatist.

That sounds pretty bad. But, if you want really want to convince the majority of the fans, what you need to do is flesh out your argument with some sources, references and some helpful comparisons. How much worse is it than it was before? How much worse is it than the situation at Sunderland, say, or Newcastle?

I applaud you for that -it's far more than I've ever done. But it's not just about asking questions, it's about what you do with the answers.

It should be easy enough to put down the facts and figures in a convincing way. I'm not trying to prove you wrong here; I really, really want you to show how unacceptable the situation is. How much did each of the 4 names above take out of Rangers, how much did they put in? How much more have they declared they are going to take out? And to put it into context, how much did the old, pre-Whyte regime get paid, and how much do the board members of similar sized clubs take? Lay it out in black and white and it'll speak for itself.

Once Whyte had bought the club what could we, as fans, realistically have done? Other than get pissed off sooner. The point I'm trying to make is that posting dire predictions about a regime on an internet forum is about as much use as ignoring the situation.