Jump to content

 

 

Hildy

 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,747

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Hildy

  1. Hildy
    You read this and thought that a loan might be required around two months later?
  2. Hildy
    What did you understand the following quote to mean when it appeared in the Herald on 17th December last year? "In the short to medium term there is sufficient cash within the club in order for it to continue trading on a normal basis". Graham Wallace.
  3. Hildy
    If you tailor a fan ownership scheme towards accommodating rich guys, you might find the rich guys running the show and the ideal being compromised. Speaking to rich men to accelerate the process and paying them back in full is more agreeable because there is no compromise in the scheme itself.
  4. Hildy
    Threatening behaviour from one fan or group to another is utterly disgusting, totally unjustifiable and completely beyond the pale, but as we glory in being Rangers fans, we have to recognise that there are a few in our number who will behave disgracefully because the broad church that we are reaches some very dark places. Violence, threats of violence and intimidation have no part to play in what is now our struggle to make Rangers a fit and proper club again.
  5. Hildy
    It's far healthier to appeal to the many to invest a little - what they can afford to lose - than to seek out rich guys to gift money to a scheme that seems to have very little in it for them.
  6. Hildy
    This lust for a HNWI, or rich guy, is a real turn-off. Anyone genuinely wanting fan ownership should be appealing to the many, not the lucky few.
  7. Hildy
    I have a vote with my community share. As long as I remain in the RST, I will never lose it. It is paid for and no more money is required to retain it. I am happy to have one vote in a community whether it is 2,000 strong or twenty times that size, and if the majority is against me sometimes, so be it. With RF, if you stop paying, you have no longer have a say in what happens no matter how much you have paid in. I do believe though that both schemes need to find a way to work together. People can make their own choices about how much to pay, but all shares bought should belong to one group - not two. Punters are sick and tired of new groups, more complication and more infighting. Cooperation is key. Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
  8. Hildy
    Don't forget, most who joined BuyRangers paid £125 up front, including me. There are probably over 2,000 who paid this way. The monthly option is a good idea because it makes it more affordable when payments are spread, but paying monthly does not go on forever with BuyRangers. When you have paid for a community share after a year, the payments stop apart from £10 a year for Trust membership - unless more community shares are required. With RangersFirst, as I understand it, the payments go on forever and nothing is owned by contributing individuals even if they stop paying after five, ten or twenty years.
  9. Hildy
    Once again, as the debate centres on individuals, their worth, their integrity, their intentions and their behaviour, the argument against the club essentially belonging in private hands is strengthened. What a waste of time it has been in recent times as we watched from afar as the club became the property of God knows who and for God knows why. Even if ownership changed tomorrow, the next ownership crisis could be just around the corner. Instead of discussing how we can make Rangers better, we speculate on people who may or may not come in and who may or may not take the club forward. It is mind-numbingly tedious, and all the while Rangers is locked into mediocrity - and it will never change until the club becomes the property of those who care for it more than its current owners ever will. Rangers needs to be a fan-owned club. Only then will it be protected and able to concentrate on performing at its brilliant best both on and off the field. If Rangers is as grand as we say it is, why do we entrust it to whoever wants to buy it? If ever there was a recipe for disaster, this is surely it.
  10. Hildy
    Of course they are, but those with different opinions are entitled to their views too. A significant number of fans have given up on this regime and they have made the right decision. Defending it has become an exercise in futility. It is akin to defending shoddy goods, and reasonable people just don't do that. Don't let the anti-King and anti-Blue Knight blinkers blind you to the sad truth. Rangers is owned by a regime which has no way back to credibility. It is done, but while it lingers like a bad smell, it is dragging the club down. The sooner it is gone, the sooner the recovery can begin.
  11. Hildy
    The regime remains unchanged. Faceless ownership has put placemen in charge and substitutes them as and when appropriate. Nothing really changes. Outrageous salaries are commonplace, fat bonuses are undeservingly awarded, the kitman and his assistant apparently pocket £180,000 and the goalkeeping coach gets the same while the club loses money like a drunk at the races and barely a word from atop the marble staircase is believed. When credibility evaporates, as it has done at Ibrox, wholesale change is not just required, it is essential. I am no cheerleader for King or any of the Blue Knight brigade, but it is patently obvious now that too much damage has been done for things to stay as they are. The club needs cleansed of substandard management, overpaid officials and directors, and defective ownership. We either ebb away slowly and painfully or we fight to make the change that will have to happen for this club to flourish again. Defending this regime has become a dishonourable action. It's time for change.
  12. Hildy
    The current regime is terminally tainted. It will never recover enough trust to make the club viable and successful. Until it is gone, the turmoil will continue. It is in everyone's interests now to bring this matter to a head as soon as possible.
  13. Hildy
    Given everything that has happened to us, it's fair enough to look at prospective owners in case there is anything that should concern us, but . . . The idea that all successful business types are paragons of virtue is extremely far-fetched. Along the way, they will usually have pulled a stroke or two; taken short cuts, made beneficial adjustments, paid late, minimised tax bills and been creative with accounting and generous with expenses. Just look at our elected representatives: self-interest can make honest men blur the lines between what is right and what is sometimes essential. I don't want another business type owning Rangers, but if it turns out that another one is about to, I'm not going to be so naive to believe that his or her background will have been devoid of a little sinfulness. What is it that our church leaders like to tell us? We're all sinners. I don't think anyone can reasonably find fault in that.
  14. Hildy
    We are in crisis because the current ownership of Rangers isn't trusted. We are in crisis because the previous ownership of the club couldn't be trusted. We are in crisis because the ownership of the club previous to the last ownership couldn't be trusted. Is there anyone out there who still can't see what the problem is? What is the weakest link at Rangers Football Club? Defective ownership. What is the cure? Fan ownership.
  15. Hildy
    Having a vote matters. Not having a vote is frightening. People will always disagree and argue that black is white and find reasons to buck the trend, and this is quite normal. We used to think that only the aristocratic elite could have the vote, then we added commoners into the mix, and then women too. We even lowered the age from 21 to 18 and it'll be 16 for the referendum. We used to think that a woman could never be PM, but it happened and Britain is still functioning. Look at our current board. Which of them would you have voted for? They are there because money put them there. We have already seen what happens when money dictates who rules and who doesn't. There is no accountability, no democracy and no hope of preventing a bad owner from making bad decisions. We don't want a board which is free of Rangers supporters. We have no need for a board that puts its own interests ahead of the club. We don't want a board which permits farcical salaries to be paid, but that's what we've got because it bought its way to the table and is as representative of the support as I am of David Milliband and Ed Balls. We need to grow up as a support, stop being deferential to suits, stop tolerating incompetence and bad practice, and start participating in how our club is run. Trusting to luck where ownership is concerned is about as mad as mad can be.
  16. Hildy
    I have a number of friends who are reluctant to go down the fan ownership road. One said to me recently that we would have Orange Bands on the pitch at half-time, which is complete nonsense of course, but perhaps it sums up how we see ourselves and why we tend not to like ourselves very much. To each of my friends who are less than keen on fan ownership, I asked the following question: Would you become a member of the club if it became a fan-owned entity? They all said, very enthusiastically, 'yes'. If an active minority can make fan ownership happen, it will be fully grasped by tens of thousands.
  17. Hildy
    We are wasting our time with all these groups. We had too many when we had three and now we have even more, but in a fan ownership situation, this would not be a problem. With one person, one vote, in a membership of maybe 100,000, what is there to fear? It intrigues me that people seem to fear their fellow fans. We allow every adult a vote in how the country is governed. Why are we afraid then that a fan we don't like could become become president of the club? If Britain can run the risk of Milliband becoming PM, surely the Rangers support can run the risk of Mark Dingwall becoming president? If I was to buy Rangers outright, I might look seriously at moving away from Ibrox. As owner, I could make this happen. As an elected president though, the members would stop it from happening and elect someone else. Our door is constantly open to defective, criminal and / or greedy ownership. Doesn't that bother you? Wouldn't you rather have a say in who our president is?
  18. Hildy
    I'm not a fan of that model. I would like to see the various models examined, from Barcelona to Real Madrid to Bayern Munich, and then settle on the best one, or maybe a compromise, for ourselves. To be honest, I think this is something the RST should be looking at, but I would certainly want the club to be owned in its entirety by its membership.
  19. Hildy
    I wouldn't want to own Rangers. I would only buy it to sell it - not gift it - to the support. I believe in the club being owned by the collective - not the individual - even if the individual was me.
  20. Hildy
    He may have changed his strategy.
  21. Hildy
    If he actually buys the club, he might not put another £30m in on top. It will depend on what he has to shell out and if he wants to sell to the fanbase.
  22. Hildy
    I'm glad that he realises that going for ownership is the only credible way to proceed if he is intent on protecting the club and its assets. If he does gain control though, I wonder what will happen next. Dave King must know that his being in charge can only ever be a temporary solution. Selling to the Rangers support would provide a sound launching pad to move productively into the future. It can be done constructively and carefully over a period of time, but the intention should really be announced early.
  23. Hildy
    If the figures are true, I think it goes beyond being badly run. It's more like a gravy train for many of those on board. It is a disgusting way for a cash-strapped club to conduct its affairs. It's getting to the point where it is difficult to fund this lot and retain self-respect.
  24. Hildy
    Not only did RBR inform us of the figures, he later said this: "I can assure everyone those figures are correct". He doesn't seem to be in any doubt.
  25. Hildy
    I have no wish to personalise this and I certainly don't blame those in position for accepting salaries at this generous level, but the fact remains that we have already suffered a traumatic financial event and are now borrowing money to stave off another. There is no excuse, no matter who started this, to continue to pay out £180,000 a year for these jobs. The buck stops with the current regime. They cannot duck it.
×
×
  • 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.