buster.
-
Posts
13,918 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
103
Everything posted by buster.
-
There is a simple order of play that many would see as reasonable. 1. Meaningful Transparency and Reasonable Questions fully answered. 2. Degree of Trust and Engagement 3. React to Events (not spin), if positive then things get better, trust increases etc. Step one requires meaningful engagement, not spin based on the size of a bank account.
-
Jim went very public with his backing for the CG&Co purchase of assets and echoed the Irvinesque 'partyline' back in June 2012. So he was either a bad judge with a frontline seat or happy to tow the party line for whatever motive. I've head many mention that he can be very helpful with the day to day business but it would seem if any role or influence he may have within the 'political' isn't always so constructive for the longterm interests of the club.
-
Well put Frankie ! If you boil it down, it's all about dividing the 'spoils'.......... .............and doing the arithmetic/corporate jiggery pokerey, that looks for a way of keeping the gravytrain on the tracks at our expense and for their benefit.
-
As job losses loom at Ibrox, are Jim Hannah and Irene Munro safe from the metaphorical axe?
-
Why would they need to speak to BS over the abnormal retail agreement, does BS or friends have something that Llambias wants? Thoughts?
-
It'll be interesting to see where they end up if Burton remove them from their shops.
-
It's easier and more pleasent to listen with hope, to tales of a billionaire than to look deeply and with realism, into a nest of vipers. To hope, one should be able to Trust. At this point in time, I see no good reason why one would 'hope' with such force that was strong enough to dismiss doubt. At this point in time, the situation in front of us points to the sensible road being doubt/vigilance. It shows a continued lack of transparency, an unwillingness to engage or address the serious questions.
-
Try reading the OP where BH himself describes all of the above.
-
"Berlin, I think we have a problem"
-
The retail joint venture between TRFC and Sports Direct from the summer of 2012 had Leach and Stockbridge both on the Rangers Retail board. The retail deal that Rangers still have to see a penny of in it's cashflow.
-
Yes, I agree but if they haven't then you play the ball from where it is and the club say there will be no 12th man. More importantly, the majority of the RFB will know that they need to get to the bottom of what happened in the BH mystery and inform their membership and the general supporter. Then there will be any club input/instructions to consider. We'll have to wait and see what happens.
-
By the time the election is called, organised and held it'd be nearly time for more elections. It's not fair on the eleven others to be expected or to be able to pick up the slack in a focused way, which in turn means the away fans don't receive the service they should get. I wasn't a fan of BH at the macro or potential office bearer roles but at the micro level of sorting out problems of away fans I reckon he'd have done a good job.
-
That is pretty much the option that they were left with regards wording. That doesn't seem fair on anyone. Whoever finished 2nd in the election should get it.
-
It was only a casual thought based on conjecture. We await the next meeting for another 500 post whodunnit
-
With Ashely, he might look to exploit the membership scheme in a commercial way. If individuals on any RFB presented problems, I'm sure he'd find ways of dealing with them.
-
You'd be forgiven for wondering if they were looking to embroil the RFB in it's own problems at this sensitive time for the club going forward.
-
The RFB was always, always going to be designed for the club to make a net gain wrt the macro or 'political'. What has happened wrt BH is as yet unclear.
-
That statement sums-up the latest goings and their surroundings very well.
-
It would be wise for the RFB to find out and publicly explain why BH was told to leave.
-
From the club's POV I reckon there maybe something in that. A problem with 'style' rather than 'content'. Whatever it was, a decision seems to have been made quickly, before office bearers were appointed, so as it could be done the way it has.
-
"For every action there are born several new questions." Frankie The scale of division has been absolutely key to those with interests to hide and money to collect. Irvine has been the main man behind it for many years and it is now so deeply entrenched, that there is no real prospect of change in the medium term. It would survive an insolvency event. Between the division, the layers of corporate fog and contracts...........I don't see normaility breaking out anytime soon. Many clubs have sp.ivs feeding off them but the longterm toxicity that Irvine helped spread throughout the support, probably makes us unique in the sporting world but for all the wrong reasons.
-
It was the one thing he could give up (for the time being) without it directly affecting his cashflow. You can't trust this lot and what goes on behind closed doors. The board seem to be inferring..... We've tried to convince Mike 'Not Normal ' Ashely to give way a bit, at least prior to the AGM.
-
It'll be interesting to see what they say about that in the accounts. We already know the main numbers involved (cash not released) up until the end of June this year. A normal club will probably have more than 51% of the retail venture. A normal joint venture wouldn't have 49% (SD) controlling the financial matters of the 51% (TRFC). A normal club woudn't be so happy about receiving no liquid cash in times of cashflow crisis (in over 2 years up until the end of June 2014)
-
Difficult to comment as there is no real clarity there. On the face of it giving up the stadium naming rights is a plus but we don't know what is taking it's place or how they define "normalised" wrt to the retail operation. Interesting to see that it wasn't viewed as normal and perhaps will be used in the old AGM 'let's blame what's gone before' trick....which we saw last year and was laughable given this years events. I'd say a 'normal retail relationship' would be one where appropriate levels of cash reached the club. More especially in times when we need credit facilities for cashflow and have to indirectly 'pay dearly' for them. I'd also say the option/terms to buy-out the TRFC 51% in the retail joint venture were heavily 'loaded' in favour of Sports Direct. Not fogetting the SD 'control on financial matters' with only 49% of the shareholding, normal ?
-
This is a valid point that individual fans may view differently. The important starting point is that we are all Bears, there should be a recognition of that common ground and respect for reasonable opposing views. Re. messageboards Thereafter fans who choose to can enter into debate.