Jump to content

 

 

buster.

 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    13,902

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    103

 Content Type 

Everything posted by buster.

  1. buster.
    Add that to 31,175 on a Saturday against Dumbarton and you are looking at around 8K of walk-ups/away support. Now 8K walk-ups wouldn't have been that different from last season. This isn't very good considering that you have around 13,000 who gave up their ST and you'd imagine that 3 to 5,000 would consider attendence game by game, especially at the beginning of the season. Seems to reflect more widespread and general discontentment.
  2. buster.
    Same with me ! Unless he's put his ignore list on ignore then hopefully he's looking to take on a wider opinion base in an effort to improve on his consistent but negative record in 'political calls'..................I give him some stick at times but that would have to be applauded.
  3. buster.
    De Maria Van Persie Rooney Mata et al manage one shot on target and no goals against Burnley (who win their first point of season) with Scott Arfield in the midfield..............4 competitive games, 2 goals and no wins. Maybe just aswell for LVG that MU didn't get the big guns up front as Moyes did last year. Lets see what Louis has to say..............
  4. buster.
    It would for certain individuals/mysterious groups but may effect income projections for bespoke spinning bullshitters of the dodgy.
  5. buster.
    Supporters and how they interact, fund and have been generally ready to consume mislead spin and lies have certainly had a lot to do with why we are where we are. In short, we have been exploited. The "scenario" as you call it has been set-up by SDM and subsequently exploited by more blatant sp.ivs. To try and lay the blame and only talk of supporters is as unbalanced as a Real Madrid v Forfar cup-tie.
  6. buster.
    I heard this a couple of months ago through generally good sources. That is a LONG way away from saying anything will actually happen. You also have to consider that whatever rootsource this came from may or may not have an agenda themselves and of course the situation is very much fluid.
  7. buster.
    So Soros 'swooped" down into the 100M McGills bus yard (nothing now stuffed into the sofas apparently) and flew off with a small-time convicted fraudster who has fronted the proxy group with the likes of Blue Pitch (ready with their 50M) but doesn't get on with Graham 'can't find the 5M button' Wallace. Surprised the ex-con could find time between fending off 80M bids for McGills, 'saving shipyards', considering a bus to Malta or in short, living a land of Toxic Jack inspired make-believe. I wonder if the bespoke Spinning Bullshitter of the dodgy is swimming against the tide and that The Easdales are going to end up with a very public net negative through their involvment with Rangers.
  8. buster.
    My post was based on facts and 'thinking out of the box'. What has been "heinous" regards the well-being of Rangers, has been the agenda of nearly all those you have 'backed' and/or 'defended'. This is a fact and rather calls into question your judgement on such issues and should be brought up of occasion to remind or warn readers. As for Ashely, is this in part, more kite flying from the Blue Pitch side of the table ? I take it Mr.Soros has withdrawn
  9. buster.
    Where DB doesn't see a problem or dismisses 'X',...... is probably (given his consistency) our best early warning system to flag up a (potential) problem.
  10. buster.
    I think it's more accurate to say that the rest of Europe laughs at Scottish Football.
  11. buster.
    The multi-layered gravytrain never have answers for the supporters, only spin and patronising repetitive pish. Including these two. Upstairs / GW:.................................. 315K basic (+100% bonus?) Downstairs / AMcC............approx 750K basic (50% deferred since January?)
  12. buster.
    Ally says he speaks/meets Graham Wallace all the time but never knows anything, do they talk about horse-racing ?
  13. buster.
    Toxic Jack/Mediahouse has certainly been at the side of all the usual suspects along the way from SDM onwards. Note that since Green&Co landed with an advance party of Stockbridge and Ahmad,..... Jack/Mediahouse were at the side of D&P, who for officers of the court got through a hell of a lot of (our) money using Spin-doctors. Thereafter they have remained at the side of the same table that Blue Pitch and other mysterious investors are sitting. They have spun for the front that was Green, the 'changeover' to the next front, the Easdales who you'll notice aren't very pally with Wallace anymore and Jack attacks accordingly. Note that Mediahouse were extremely active at the rushed 'handover' from Green to The Easdales. You can also see during this tiime time that The Judas Blogger stays onside with the same people and takes his lead from Irvine. This constant line that runs from the 'old board' to the supposed 'new board' post AGM renders claims of 'new' extremely hollow or in other words, bullshit.
  14. buster.
    The perceived unfairness you point to regards Rangers seeding/ this years League Cup draw is hypocritical and IMO balderdash. We are where we are and we could not reasonably ask for a change to the rules because we think we are a bigger and better team than many of those seeded higher. Such a move would be received badly in any football community, not only Scotland and rightly so. As it happens, we have provisionally benefitted from circumstance in the draw that saw the winners of our tie with ICT paired with Falkirk (lower half of seeds). I believe that seeding isn't used in the League Cup for the Q/F onwards.
  15. buster.
    TBH I haven't the expertise or knowledge to go much further with the guessing game but I would say that given recent history, to be anything other than an "unapologetic cynic" in these circumstances would be akin to believing in the tooth fairy. I concur that relevant plans will have been made and that there will be various options within, so as to cover the possible upcoming scenarios.
  16. buster.
    I'm no expert in this material but did come accross this within the Companies Act of 2006 I was told that shareholder approval would be required in this hypothetical case if RIFC looked to subsequently dispose of/sell TRFC. However could RIFC exhange TRFC debt for Ibrox and thereafter charge a rent for the use of ?
  17. buster.
    They wouldn't need shareholder approval to simply transfer Ibrox from TRFC to RIFC (in exchange for debt). (But would if RIFC then looked to sell TRFC)
  18. buster.
    I'm sorry if the truth hurts (there is a Monty Python sketch in there somewhere). It was certainly true from my perspective although I didn't intend to make a conversation out of it given you had told me I was on your 'ignore list'. Let's end that there and get back to Topic.............. You talk of 'answers', I think we've reached a place where there are very few that are palatable thanks to the long line of sp.ivs who you welcomed through the doors. They have executive control and will have layed the financial mines.
  19. buster.
    I've come to almost look forward to DB's posts for some light relief.
  20. buster.
    Pre-emptive counter-measures are advisable.
  21. buster.
    I don't think (or rather guess) Xmas will be far off the mark and yes, I think we get closer to the time when sp.ivs will look to position/extract value from the assets in one way or another. The sp.ivs will have options covered and there will be real pain of some kind, even if that were in part, to be to a bank account in South Africa. Wouldn't surprise me if attempts were made to drag the whole thing out longer so as to keep sucking out money with assets going one by one. Pain being the Chinese drip by drip path to a darker place.
  22. buster.
    Can anyone make an educated projection regards how long this amount of money (if raised in full) would keep the lights on for ?
  23. buster.
    mistaken thread, sorry
  24. buster.
    "In line with the exemption to the European Union Prospectus Directive the possible equity issue would be for not more than an aggregate EUR5m and would avoid the costs of preparing a prospectus." http://rangers.g3dhosting.com/regulatory_news_article/386
  25. buster.
    Just thought I'd interject here because at the time of the IPO, there wasn't enough attention directed towards the political side and how that would ultimeatly effect how monies raised were spent.
×
×
  • 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.