Jump to content

 

 

Anchorman

 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,407

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Anchorman

  1. Anchorman
    I think the point of my original post has been lost. Either that or some people are ready just to throw in the towel. The point I'm making is that our fragmented support can't agree on anything. Whether it be the board, boycott or not etc. As long as we stay like that we will be rolled over time and again. I was highlighting the only common ground we seem to have at the moment that we agree on i.e. Wallace. I'm not talking about who we would like e.g. King. I'm talking about something concrete i.e. a current board member. All negotiators try to find a piece of common ground as a starting point for bringing feuding parties together. He is our only common ground, so why don't we get behind him and use his appointment to our advantage. I don't mean get behind him as a figurehead. I mean get behind him as someone we feel we can trust on this board. I fully agree that the current board may be using him as a front to see them through a storm, before they ditch him. Where will we be then? Are we going to stand by and just let that happen (some people on here seemed resigned to it already!! It's not the Rangers way!). What I'm saying is let the board know "We don't trust you, but at the moment we trust Wallace. You will have a real war on your hands if anything happens to him over 120 days (or whatever timescales). Also if we see that he is not being allowed to make the changes he wants, or he resigns of his own volition, then you really will see trouble on your doorstep". Surely we need to give Wallace a chance. But surely we as a support can stand in his corner and let this board know that we are giving them time on that condition. It's a small step towards uniting our support, but it is a step - no?
  2. Anchorman
    The point I'm making GS is that he can't do it tomorrow. He is a measured man. He hasn't been in the door long enough so if he did it would make it look like a knee jerk reaction to appease the fans and he would lose credibility with his board. That's why we have to stipulate x amount of time. as a support. If nothing is done then he is not who we thought he was, but I think it may be just as crucial now to keep him as lose Stockbridge within days or even weeks.
  3. Anchorman
    Hear me out, as I'm sure plenty will disagree. We probably have as much of a fragmented support after the AGM as we had before, if not more. So, like at any negotiating table the way to start trying to bring the factions at war together is to look for a common ground. I haven't seen one faction of our support yet who doesn't support Graham Wallace. Could he be key to bringing a common cause amongst all the support? To me the worry at the moment with Graham Wallace is: Has he been used as a temporary placement to placate investors ahead of the AGM? Will he have real autonomy when he tries to implement measures (and sackings) he sees fit? Will the incumbents care too much if they bump Wallace, now that they have won their battle? Do the present board have autonomy themselves, or are they puppets for someone else, who doesn't have to face the public if Wallace gets pushed out for rocking the boat? What about the fans getting behind an ultimatum of ' We trust Wallace. We will refrain from any boycotts on one condition - nothing happens to Wallace for x amount of time' We of course would have to put our trust in Wallace that he will be true to himself and push for changes he feels are necessary (and also trust that he has not been 'bought'), but in truth I think we feel that anyway. What we gain is protecting against him having been used as a pawn for an AGM result, unless of course they are going to be so blatant that was the case. Then they deserve the backlash that would come. Couldn't we unite behind that?
  4. Anchorman
    Wait a minute - the frickin' blinding obvious is being missed here. On the back of the red cards was a full bloody story about 'sack the board', so much so that a large number held them round the wrong way. Unless Nelson Mandela also wanted rid of Stockbridge and Co (which is quite conceivable as he was a wise man) I can't see why it could have been perceived to have had any link whatsoever to anti-apartheid support. Maybe he got confused with what he heard as he is not up to speed with local lingo yet. Maybe he heard some say they wanted to tear Stockbridge's 'heid apart'.
  5. Anchorman
    I really have got to laugh at comments like this that are becoming more frequent. To the outsider looking in we must look absolutely fucking bonkers. On one side we have a bunch of guys, with hardly a Rangers lover to be found in amongst them, who have already almost ran our ship into the ground despite starting off with a £22m pound warchest. None of whom would shed a tear if we lost it all, as long as they moved on to the next lucrative venture unscathed. On the other side we have a bunch of Rangers diehards desperate to save the Club from any more chancers who will get by whatever their next project is. "OK Mr Outsider guess who the rebels are he is referring to as being routed. No, you get one more guess. No, honest to fuck it's those guys he is calling 'routed rebels'. I know - I don't fucking get it either. He has caught on to a phrase on some other silly site that uses 'rebels and routed' (yes I know it's usually Dhim terminology and it's exactly the same phrases they used on the steps of Parkheid when McCann took over, but they don't get it, and it's the modern world of Rangers 'fan' we live in".
  6. Anchorman
    It's not made up nonsense. It is very accurate. There are still a few people in PWC who know him very well.
  7. Anchorman
    Don't bite!
  8. Anchorman
    He just couldn't help trying to associate the Gattuso 'cheating' scandal to a Rangers story could he?
  9. Anchorman
    Desperate? If you mean desperate to see Rangers run by the right people - yes. Desperate to get a board he can trust with his investment - yes. If you mean desperate to get on board with either of the two current sides - no. He has already said no to each of them. He just wants the fighting to end. You can have all the savvy in the world, but sometimes it's not enough to negotiate peace if the sides don't want peace. Chamberlain was supposedly the best negotiator this island had when he went to Godesberg to 'tie up some loose ends' with Hitler!
  10. Anchorman
    I tried to fit that in but couldn't come up with anything (was juggling with Frankie and incense but getting nowhere).
  11. Anchorman
    I see where you are going with that one ya wee soandso. Comedy gold, and I will bet there is myrrh where that came from.
  12. Anchorman
    You would think that the BBC are against the Club falling into the hands of the right people the way they are acting.
  13. Anchorman
    Hildy, that's wonderful news. Tell everyone else not to get their hopes up.
  14. Anchorman
    I don't need to. Dave King has told everybody many times.
  15. Anchorman
    What is it you don't get about this next sentence? Dave King has no interest in owning Rangers!!!
  16. Anchorman
    It wasn't aimed at you Steve. It was actually at Hildy.
  17. Anchorman
    He has no interest in buying or owning the Club !!! He is not dubious!!!
  18. Anchorman
    I could weep about the amount of posts that appear on sites when King is mentioned with "sugar daddy", "one man show", "one man owning the Club". It shows a complete ignorance of the man's intentions which he has stated quite clearly - often!! He doesn't want to own or buy the Club - no interest - full stop!! He wants to invest in the Club but only when the board can prove that the required levels of fiscal governance are in place - not before - full stop! He is not a cowboy - He wants nothing out of the Club for his investment.
  19. Anchorman
    Any fans who think or wish King would buy Rangers has obviously never listened to a word the guy has said. He's not interested in buying the Club. Explain 'dubious'. I don't get that bit.
  20. Anchorman
    Is it really? I'm not so sure. Time will tell.
  21. Anchorman
    I disagree - I think his words today will give a great deal of hope to many people who thought that a doomsday scenario was looming tomorrow depending on how the vote went. It's certainly given me hope as I have always looked on King as the one player I don't want to walk away from the show. I also disagree that he has done nothing of real note recently. He has worked hard behind the scenes for quite a while positioning himself to be ready (legally and clearing his credibility status) to move when the time is right. He also worked hard to try to broker a peace deal. I also believe that his refusal to 'walk away' has more impact that people give credit for. Whoever wins this desperately hopes to have King's investment - I believe it is key to both sides now that he is clear with the SA authorities. Who knows what part that will (or already has) play in the current lot creating a board that is seen as credible and trustworthy.
  22. Anchorman
    He has stated quite categorically when. When he sees a board in place that he can trust, he will be willing to invest directly into the Club. He has no interest in lining anyone's pocket vi a share purchase just to gain some kind of control. We have not been in that position for a long time. Why would he go against everything he has stated all along?
  23. Anchorman
    King has proved in the past he walks the walk, while others talk the talk. He will do so again.
  24. Anchorman
    I personally think most people at this stage would settle for: Stockbridge gone Dave King on board One other from the requisitioners side, even one of the less contentious (another olive branch would be Irvine to walk the plank)
  25. Anchorman
    Only after protracted legal wranglings and we would all love that.
×
×
  • 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.