Jump to content

 

 

buster.

  • Posts

    14,136
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    110

Everything posted by buster.

  1. If the support want full blown access to all details then become 51% owners of the club. It is asking too much for a business to have an open book policy with no commercially sensitive details allowed to be kept from the public domain. Given that some of the main individual shareholders are supporters and we can't be far from having 51%, then it comes down to trusting the people (individual supporters/ reps of shareholder groups) who are in and around the boardroom. If you can't or won't trust them then you're unlikely to ever have a satisfactory solution. I think it relevant to mention: - that the loud noise being made by some is disproportionate to the size and number of those involved. I refer to the general spin being put out there by the 'usual suspects' (eg. McMurdo, etc. from - Irvine - Bishop - Ashley camp). - that the vast majority trust / want to trust / want to have confidence in the current board. - that the current board have inherited a black hole of an Onerous Ibrox Treasury and their task is Herculean. - that they are desperately trying to hold it together, never mind move forwards. - that the current board may not be ideal is some respects but are in their own way, fighting for Rangers interests. It is far from a perfect situation but it's the dark reality of so many years of so many board members, that have done everything so as to best position themselves and related parties interests at the forefront of beneficiaries, with the club/support always paying the bill. Actual turmoil will continue because of it and efforts from the Irvines of this world will continue to maintain confusion and division. I hear people talking of paying Ashley the 5m to get rid of him and liken it somewhat, to back in the summer of 2012 when the WS led consortium were looking to make an offer to the Green led consortium, post sale of assets. I think the former were offering the latter a Million or two more than the 5.5M price that CG&Co had paid. CG&Co knew how much Rangers could make them and would have needed the offer multiplied by X (IMO more than x4). Well to get rid of Ashley and his influence.interests, we can use a similar multiplication. When Green&Co / MASH / SD got in the door they made sure that they made use of the boardroom control and put in place such onerous deals that would put Rangers in financial chains for years to come. Ironically, some still don't appreciate the difficulties and even support Ashley, by default. I can only hope that the possibility of a legal route out from the clutches of the onerous, may yet surface.
  2. No quotes and I can't find similar references to exact figures/'warchests' in the Spanish press. Sarver is definately involved in talks with Levante, the go-ahead for club to negotiate having come from a formal vote, taken by the relevant body on Tuesday 23rd. I look at the Herald article, read the Spanish press and wonder if this event isn't being used (and possibly abused) by interested parties.
  3. Without absolute knowledge, I'll respectfully disagree and not push any further. However, I'd be interested to hear what other general alternatives you think there might be, or even a very general outline of such.
  4. Do you answer posts that you haven't read properly ? I didn't state that I knew exactly why the DM went with the article but put up two alternatives and it generally comes down to one or tuther. It is related (one way or other) to the leak (re.meeting) aimed at PMGB, again.......read my previous post.
  5. The root leak is that to PMGB and that is why The Daily Mail have it up today, even if todays article came from a Rangers source, in an effort to counter the traction that the PMGB blog had established online, ie. no leak to PMGB and you'd have no Mail article today. The other possible reason is that The Mail have it today, is that the newspaper has seen the online 'noise' that the issue has provoked and for commercial reasons, want a share of the attention.
  6. I'm looking at the question objectively and gave outline reasons as to why I came up with my best guess. Perhaps you could do similar as to why DK (or close) might like to furnish PMGB with info that looks to damage DK personally and may confuse and dilute the supports attitudes regards the surrounding issues.
  7. Very much doubt it, everything that I can see points to the initial leak coming from the SD side given that PMGB has been used by them (IMO 3rd part spindoctor) frequently and not forgetting the content itself. It also has it's place within their general MO and current strategy regards the 'dispute'.
  8. My best guess is that the Ashley side leaked it to PMGB with 'embellishments'. This took hold on social media and has led to the Mail going with with the basic premise. 'Ashley side' want to confuse, divide, dilute and split hardline opposition within support to SD/retail deal, whilst giving the absolute minimum (if any) in concessions or any tweaks to deal. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes. PMGB slags off MSM for reproducing press releases rather than carrying out investigative journalism (generally he's right) BUT does the same himself. It's ironic in that he is being used by spindoctors, who directly or indirectly work for a businessman whose methods fly in the face of what PMGB is forever complaining about. He has previous for mistaken embellishment regards his info on Rangers/SD. He confidently declared that the second 5M tranche of the January 2015 credit facility had been drawn down. ----------------------------------------------------------- Difficult to comment on said meeting without knowing what was said.
  9. Mike... 'likes to be on both sides of the negotiating table'... Ashley The 'Geordie Treatment Room V', the clauses and (lack of) medical examination allied to the state the players were in is another example.
  10. Possibly, Steve.....it's difficult to say. It would appear that the quantum of 'legal costs' asked for by SD and the shock that it gave the judge (who was "flabbergasted"), might support what you put forward.
  11. You still don't know ? Ashley wants to squeeze and extract as much 'benefit' out of us as he possibly can, period. Precedent shows he gives short shrift to bad publicity and has an expensive and well drilled machine out there that will counter-attack, so as to confuse, divide and mitigate.
  12. No but it seems to have been kicked in to touch by the judge with her setting the amount. "Judge orders £20,000 in costs to be paid by RFC to Sports Direct"
  13. SD, the retail partner from hell Counsel for Sports Direct thanks judge for her decision, asks for legal costs to be paid by RFC Judge tells counsel for Sports Direct says she is "flabbergasted" by the legal costs claimed. Legal Costs claimed by sports direct are"shocking" judge tells court. Costs claimed by Sports Direct include "24 hours" of telephone calls. Judge orders £20,000 in costs to be paid by RFC to Sports Direct source: twitter James Doleman@jamesdoleman
  14. SD Injunction agreed to by judge ! Injunctions invaribly mean that the party seeking them has something to lose by the public being informed. The public however, retains the right to purchase or not to purchase.
  15. There is enough out there to know that it is weighted heavily in their favour and to that suggest those who signed up to the deal on behalf of the club were negligent or complicit. However the majority are still unaware of details and SD want to keep it this way.............Are you happy with that Rabb ?
  16. Sports Direct are in essence admitting that the retail deal is 'ripping the pish' in their favour. The 'best deal they ever had' should be kept a secret because with more knowledge, the consumer would be more likely to bypass their goods. Does the consumer and/or shareholder deserve to gat a better grasp of the details and where their money goes ?
  17. Afternoon Frankie et al ! I think he (raygun/quattro etc),..... or one of his disciples goes by the moniker of 'mcfc' on the TSFM website.
  18. In todays society PR takes on an ever more important role and it's not surprising that parrallel to this has seen a society become a place where the Truth is no longer fashionable and Accountability old hat. Another word that is often employed for part of what comes under the PR banner is 'SPIN'. This can be described as a 'skill' that seeks to twist or mislead the consumer of the message, so as to advantage the person or group who advised spindoctor on remit. We have been the target of such 'PR' over a long period of time that predates the arrival of Craig Whyte in May 2011. IIRC Toxic Jack/Mediahouse were brought in by Sir Duped back in 2006 and a book could be written on how this influenced subsequent events. What I want to say here is that the new 'PR' for Rangers should be "Patience and Realism' on the way forward and not spin. IMO it should be employed by both the club and the support, especially given the huge amount of work that is needed and the financial limitations that apply. This would be consistent with a Transparent approach from the new board. Some Public Relations advice will be needed for certain issues going forward but I'd like to think that we could put together a board that had enough savvy and foresight to limit the need for professional advice to the occasional. We the fans need to be Patient and Realistic going forward. Expectations together with timescales should be measured and not tempt the club into 'buttering us up' at times.
  19. Tend to be the same folk that forever back the wrong horse, the ones who work in their own or related parties interests at the cost of Rangers. Not content with bad judgement, they often compound things by focusing their ire on individual fans and/or fansgroups whilst the board and associated parties get up to no good. Consistantly High 'Levels of Stupid' that are seldom seen.
  20. I think that recent events/actions surrounding the RFB and their interaction with RIFC have not only helped highlight to all the unbrigdable chasm that exists between the supporter and the board but has shown that the board aren't interested in even trying. Most of us knew that the soundbite of "communication and engagement" was bullshit and so it has proved to be. It's end of days for them now but they'll leave an unholy mess behind them that will take years to see the other side of.
  21. I think you are struggling to come to terms with the fact that it is you who isn't relevant.
  22. It's almost scary the lengths they go to to make themselves look like complete idiots who shouldn't be trusted to run an errand to buy a loaf of bread.
  23. From Bean to Cup, they fuck-up. Unless it is something more directly concerned with their or related parties interests and even then..............
  24. In many spheres, long-term Spin campaigns introduce mind-sets and repeated 'points of logic' that target "crowds". They then accompany this with the discrediting and/or ridicule of contrary opinion. Generally, I think we'd be surprised as to how many times the "crowd" (or at least those presented) are wrong these days. This in part is down to the increased use of spin and how the media have become in many cases, more compliant and prepared to push it without due balance/investigation. Truth is old hat.
  25. I think we as a support are going through such a nightmarish and profoundly gamechanging experience / process that it fully merits comment and that we need to learn some lessons to keep in mind going forward. Serious articles addressing the issue might be useful.
×
×
  • 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.