D'Artagnan
-
Posts
1,590 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Everything posted by D'Artagnan
-
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/jim-mccoll-backs-graham-wallace-as-rangers-chief-exec.1385759471 Thats seems like an endorsement to me Zap - general or otherwise.
-
Ok I'll give it a shot as purely as Devil's Advocate - I would request people see this in the context Shorerdbear and I discussed - and not as support of the current board. Firstly lets start with our CEO - Wallace http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/rangers/mccoll-says-wallace-is-a-man-of-steel-for-rangers-143996n.22831596 In all the players who have taken the stage thus far JM has by far impressed me the most. He calls it as it is and does not engage in petty argument and propaganda and, more than many, brings a sense of integrity and professionalism. His endorsement in that article of not only Wallace but the whole board suggests to me we have a capable board in place, known and respected throughout the business world. Such a vote of confidence should lift us above puerile digs such as "****s" & "wigs" - unfortunately it hasnt - but I think such conduct is only self-defeating for those who resort to it. Of course Stockbridge remained, though not for long - perhaps he was the sacrificial lamb or perhaps Wallace saw through his incompetency who knows - but it demonstrated the new man was listening to the demands of fans. The later departure of Irvine was also welcomed and again appeared to be a response to the desires of almost all fans/fan groups. Wallace asked to be judged on 120 days - and initially that was agreed. Our accounts did not make comfortable reading and it is clear our club is bleeding money. Some of those costs are attributed to unrealistic salaries to staff which the current board had no part of - though they did try to reduce it and it was rejected of course. At some point, no matter who is on the board, those unrealistic wages are going to have to be addressed and such a culture brought to an end. As is pointed out in another thread new sponsors have been found, though the details have still to be published, and also a fan engagement survey is underway. It is of course too early to give any plaudits regarding the latter - the proof will be in the implementation of the issues raised by fans. Then of course we come to Easdales - and I make it no bones about it - I would much rather persons with a more positive public image were involved at our club. But if we are going to get into the moral argument then Dave King fares little better after his brush with the South African Tax Man. If King says the integrity button has no on/off switch does that mean the man who was labelled a "shameless glib liar" will behave in the same manner at our club ? The opening link I posted also makes reference to Colin Kingsnorth & Laxey. Again Wallace appears to rate him in that article and appears to have no concerns regarding him nor the investment. Furthermore as was seen recently Laxey were happy to step aside for the benefit of the club when a more favourable loan/credit rating became available from George Letham. Despite the fact that Easdale's loan was interest free he seems to have collected none of the plaudits enjoyed by others despite offering the most generous terms. But the loans/credit facility is where it goes particularly pear shaped. Despite Wallace's assertions even in January that there was sufficient money to tide us through the board's actions suggested quite the opposite - and the speed with which the money seemed to be required was additionally alarming. To date the board have failed to explain this anomaly between statements and action. Perhaps it was, as some have suggested, as a consequence of Imran's court case - but to date we are all still in the dark. Not good enough. But I dont think the UOF have helped their own case - at times they have appeared to be hyper-critical and deliberately confrontational. When King is saying some fans are spoiling for a fight - I think its perhaps time to check yourself. Also I think the links between some in the UOF and Paul Murray make people wary. Not that Im saying there is anything wrong with Paul Murray, but if you are putting yourself out there to challenge the board then perhaps it would be wiser to not to be involved with parties who may have a vested interest in the demise of the board, as that could seen as an agenda rather than an atruistic crusade. The last thing is there are clearly fans who care not a jot for individuals but purely the club. They will buy ST's as they feel doing otherwise could seriously harm or endanger the club. Post Edit Sorry SB I think on re-reading that it seems more like a SITREP than an actual direct answer to your original question.
-
Shorerbear I could probably give you a Devils Advocate answer at a push - a bit of grey rather than black & white
-
Wallace happy with off-field progress at Rangers
D'Artagnan replied to ian1964's topic in Rangers Chat
Frankie This really really infuriates me. You would think considering what this support has had to go through these last few years - that any board would be making every conceivable effort to be as transparent as possible within the obvious guidelines you have alluded to. Are these people so arrogant or so disconnected with the support that they have no idea why we are cautious/suspicious/rightly over vigilant within the limited powers we have available ? Who advises these people ? Or are they so full of themselves that they feel they dont need advised ? I find it staggering the considerable failure of PR with our own support. -
Wallace happy with off-field progress at Rangers
D'Artagnan replied to ian1964's topic in Rangers Chat
Well that was my thoughts exactly TM - but perhaps its indicative of the arrogance of these people. -
Wallace happy with off-field progress at Rangers
D'Artagnan replied to ian1964's topic in Rangers Chat
Its what SOS quoted to me on my Twitter Time Line TM - and when I asked Chris Graham about it later he also alluded to a desire for DK to publish it - but doubted he would -
Wallace happy with off-field progress at Rangers
D'Artagnan replied to ian1964's topic in Rangers Chat
Of course BH, perhaps some Devil's Advocate will come along and point out that the primary cause in the tight deadlines is possibly the threat of a ST Trust - one which is destined to fail with a non-co-operative board. The best way to bring this all to an end is for King to publish the Somers's e-mail which gave rise to the latest round of exchanges - then there would be no need for all this nonsense - it would Game Over. -
There would be a lot more GS if King published Somers's e-mail. The word "stampede" springs to mind.
-
From the reading of his statement on Friday DB he was suggesting that : (1) The review would not be published till after the ST deadline & (2) It was never the intention of the board to publish this until the ST deadline had elapsed.
-
Scunnered by it all tbh BH. I feel so sorry for our support - hopes being raised and then dashed again. After SDM/Whyte/Green - forgive me but Im ultra cautious about welcoming would be white knights. The way DK has gone about this has left me baffled - not at all what I envisaged and hoped for.
-
A really unwise turn of phrase for him.
-
Bearger thank you for illustrating the reasoning behind my decision :- The Rangers online community's apparent need to pigeon hole each other into this or that is something I cannot to this day fathom. Furthermore Im no more inclined to apologise for the unedifying behaviour of others than you are. Do you feel the need to apologise for those in the RST who felt it appropriate to threaten or intimidate Alan Harris ? Frankie's point in this thread is spot on - DTB and Gersnet suffer to a much lesser extent, if at all, the kind of behaviour Im alluding to, and on the rare occasion it surfaces it is dealt with by way of effective and responsible moderation. I wanted to have a voice which was completely independent of the pigeon holes I referred to earlier - those usurping any suggestion of agenda etc. (I have also steered clear of supporters groups etc for this very same reason) Also Ive been blogging and writing on Rangers for nigh on 15 years - I feel I need to cut back on some things to spend more time with my grandchildren - if not complete retiral then some much neede R &R
-
Well there are a no. of issues Zap which cause me concern - hence why I felt it necessary to engage him. Im astounded by one of his recent blogs which suggests we dont have a right to question. That concerns me greatly - it is utterly reckless after all that has transpired under a succession of regimes. Now we have a group of relative strangers at the helm and we have no right to question/examine or desire transparency ? That to me would be an abdication of responsibility by the support. Furthermore is this latest initiative just a revenue making scheme courtesy of a begging bowl to the Rangers support which covers up a lack of imagination, lack of desire, lack of ability to bring income to the club from outside sources and investors ? Perhaps we will know the answer to that at the end of the 120 day review. The question however I put to him remains unanswered. How can he have so much blind faith in a board when they themselves have not even published the results of their 120 day review ?
-
Not much more to add on here which wasnt said in the RM "exchange" I had with Bill. Quite simply utterly reckless and irresponsible.
-
-
Banished ???
-
I understand what you are saying Tom, and find myself agreeing with much of it. There are aspects of the SOS campaign Im not comfortable with - nonetheless I felt moved to contact Craig and offer him some advice. My own feelings were the pair of them were suffering from a testosterone overload and some common sense could avoided much of the silliness which transpired.
-
No Tom - it would be entirely irrelevant. There is far too much focus on individuals and groups and too little on probity. There is a constitution for the operating of the RFFFF monies, and the set of circumstances which was progressed to a vote by general meeting, was outwith the remit of the constitution. This was the feeling on numerous forums, including FF I may add. The sensible decision would have been to set up a separate account and allow persons to donate to that in respect of Craig's legal costs. Or they could have been really sensible and deferred announcing any decision until they learned the outcome of the meeting that same night, between the 2 concerned parties, and thus saved all this nonsense that has subsequently transpired.
-
The unequivocal nature of that statement serves to demonstrate the consequences of hot-blooded actions.
-
Thats it in a nutshell bud - and thats why the fence-sitters like me, should not be ostracised from their position nor the debate. If the 120 day review they asked for is honoured, and they still come up short but knock back King - then I would suggest there will be the 2 camps you alluded to earlier. Only by this time one of them will have swelled to become an irrepressible force for change.
-
Well my own opinion is that King, as per Jackson's article last week, has indeed checkmated the current board. Quite simply, irrespective of who is on the board, I cannot see anyway that such a free cash injection can be matched or more favourable revenue streams can be identified. It's simply impossible. However I dont see Somer's comments as propaganda - more of a financial reality . Our club's survival is dependent on the revenue from season ticket sales, a fact also alluded to recently by one of the main proponents of the Season Ticket Trust Fund Scheme. Im prepared to wait for the 120 days however - I think thats only sensible, particularly as the only realistic alternative - King - has also advised that.
-
Well thank you for telling me and many other Rangers supporters that our position "on the fence" is no longer acceptable. Shades of another blogger who asserted much the same with the additional comparison that us fence sitters were akin to Irish Republicans. Perhaps you should tell Dave King that his advice to wait the 120 days is no longer a tenable position to maintain either.
-
Consider me a blind man then - where is the propaganda you refer to ?
-
I think man this is where much of it falls down Tin Man - there are people in neither camp who sit somewhere in the middle but are as concerned as anyone else about our club. What is the "propaganda" in the accounts which you refer to ? As others will attest I'm not the most astute when it comes to reading or understanding accounts so i would be interested to know to what you refer. If the Rangers support are to be convinced the current incumbents of our boardroom are "wrong uns" we will need substantially more than "they are ****s" or various discourses about Sandy Easdale's hair, which to be honest comes across as puerile childish nonsense.
-
There is an article in the FF archives bluebear - funnily enough written by the bear i bumped into yesterday - on the history of supporters buses. And yes indeed caps off to all the organisers out there.