Jump to content

 

 

buster.

 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    14,371

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    111

Everything posted by buster.

  1. buster.
    You really can't argue with your in-depth reasoning and (technical) knowledge. Whilst the DR isn't the bastion of best journalism, it can be said that it has been close (at times) to what has been simmering behind the scenes. It has received a 'kicking', attempts to discredit and various calls for boycott of occasion from the Rangers support, parts of the Rangers support, Rangers the club, bloggers etc. It could be argued that it is partly being used as a conduit for getting info (news) out there by the 'side' that has opposed the ongoing spi.v process. The spi.vs obviously don't want any news, opinions, investigations, revelations getting out there and have over a longtime looked to wage a counter campaign against the DR or as they'd prefer you called it, the Daily Rhebal. For Rangers supporters to aid and abet them in this, is foolish and shortsighted. If their is one thing Rangers supporters should have learnt, it is to try and be reasonably objective when interpretating X, Y or Z. That's not to say believe everything, but read/listen and think a little as you try and fit the impossible moveable jigsaw together. I even read the Judas Blogger, McMurdo because it can of occasion be an 'early warning system' courtesy of the Toxic link.
  2. buster.
    With all the heavyweights and Chins in our directors box, they could hold a Sumo Wrestling Tournament at Ibrox. A fight to the death, with the eventual winner having a three minute play-off round with an angry lion who hadn't had breakfast. Disclaimer: Joke
  3. buster.
    A united board supporting Wallace ? I don't think so, more misleading bullshit. (James RIFC board) Easdale for one wants rid of GW. I doubt it will come to an EGM. I think in part they want to force at least Wallace to walk.
  4. buster.
    Another stage change in the ongoing sp.iv process to extract value from the club beckons as we head towards another December and another AGM. Regardless of what results from the proposed EGM (if it takes place). Many said that the last 'New Board' were basically a continuem rather than the proclaimed 'change for the better'. Well, what you'll get again is any 'blame' apportioned to the past and give the 'new board' time. there will probably an initial 'sweetner or two attached'. Meanwhile "turn up and give us your Blue Pound, we need it or the club is in trouble." They won't tell you that there is effectivelly a 'spi.v tax' to pay from that Blue Pound and that their MO will ensure that we head towards 'trouble'.
  5. buster.
    Was Graham Wallace in attendence ?
  6. buster.
    There are only so many hours in a day for a volunteer and the volume of traffic makes FF the obvious choice. Most things will reach Gersnet one way or another and then you also have the option at looking at the SoS facebook or twitter feed.
  7. buster.
  8. buster.
    I don't know the first thing about the various FO vehicle options that there may be. However, in the event that an individual fan and shareholder preferred not to join the FO vehicle directly, wouldn't the option of proxying voting rights (longterm) exist ? This might not be as solid a base but might allow the block to carry more weight. What other options exist regards FO and is there anyone especially that you see as the best option ?
  9. buster.
    Final Reminder for anyone close and interested.
  10. buster.
    "The assassin might be firing blanks for now..." Saw the title and thought this was about Merlin.
  11. buster.
    I'm coming at this from an angle that is trying to look for possible ways forward regards FO. The fundamental problem regards the divided fanbase is one that needs to be solved (to a reasonable degree) otherwise we're lost treading water in everything, not just FO. Hildy, I understand your angle and could debate some of the finer points of it but generally agree that until the spi.vs leave the building, they are going to have executive control and the voting rights largely tied-up and stay ahead of the 'game'. And that at some stage further down the road when value had been fully extracted, we'd probably be able to reclaim what was left. I won't go further than that because I don't want to go OT.
  12. buster.
    That's why I think (previous post) you'd probably need 'radical change' to alter the dynamic. Obviously this wouldn't go down well with many but......what's the more important, the groups or Rangers ? - Disband all groups - Form One new group with 'new blood' with no 'history'. (New = Change = Hope) - Try to move RFFF money towards buying shares for new group. - Encourage individual supporters to proxy their share voting rights to new group.. - Lobby for seat on the board
  13. buster.
    We can argue the toss and go round in circles. We can float in a thread of well written 'hope' proclaiming how we agree. Or perhaps we could appreciate a well written article, have the debate on this fundamantal and complicated issue, accept that it won't be easy, accept we won't all agree on every detail and wait/hope for those involved to actually move towards step 1. And not forget the immediate which in turn has direct influence on future ambitions of fan ownership. Don't interpret this or my other posts in this thread as a negative, for me it's about trying to be direct and realistic about the situation. To a point where something actually starts to move. A follow-up from yourself or other regards the possible practical mechanics of what you touch on would be welcome. For me, fan ownership is the answer but as we are, it's not happening.
  14. buster.
    Yes, but there are obvious difficulties with this aswell regards a reasonably unified and effective action. It seems as though the same problem or faultline runs through the fanbase whether it be for the more immediate or the longerterm. You have to say that if the support can't see the bigger picture for surrounding noise and squabbles within and make moves accordingly, then there is little hope of achieveing anything beyond that. That may sound negative but it's where we are. I don't have the answers and am myself opinionated regards the ongoing situation, but efforts need to be made in an attempt to seriously address the division, so as to give us at least a chance going forward for both the short and long term.
  15. buster.
    Regards the immediate, there is the SoS public meeting this evening that will be covering this (see other thread for details). To a degree, matters are out of our hands but I agree that we need to know and do as much as we can regards the immediate. We lose focus on the immediate and we have a longer, more difficult and more expensive trek to embark on regards longterm solutions. One immediate issue regards share ownership is 'resolution 10' and how it would be used regarding possible issue of penny shares / dilution in stake holdings for some. This being of direct interest to fan ownership ambitions.
  16. buster.
    Until I see something more detailed and an initial willingness for all to sit down and talk then the actual situation and history would suggest scepticism well justified. I simply reserve or park my scepticism to see if anything was to happen but meanwhile concentrate on the present reallity and prospects ahead of the stage change in the spi.v process. IMO we shouldn't base or invest great hope in X unless we reach a stage where it becomes realistic and viable. That certainly isn't to say that efforts shouldn't be made towards it, more to encourage them, so they may be able to reach what could be termed as 'realistic'.
  17. buster.
    I appreciate most of that, Hildy. Hence my....... A well written blog is fine but a realistic, practical and viable 'road-map' towards 'the goal'...... is what is really needed when touching upon this otherwise the sceptic's will simply say it is a non-starter and there would be little to suggest that they were wrong. We approach another stage change in the ongoing spi.v process, I think we'd do well to concentrate more on that for now. That doesn't stop others developing any project and coming back with solid proposals.
  18. buster.
    As per the conversation last night. In the common interest members could be canvassed regards the forming of one new group that incorporates all, disbanding the current groups. Complicated, controversial, difficult and risky business to say the least but do the groups (or people therein) prioritise the group or the club. You'd also have Toxic trying to plant moles and/or looking for 'agents'. Nothing lost by trying to set-up a meeting but you must have any such project driven by all sides from the very beginning. Is there a realistic, practical and viable 'road-map' towards goal ?
  19. buster.
    If Somers or Wallace made a phone call to the Livingston chairman and asked him if he was willing to publicly apoligise for the content, they'd soon find out how difficult (or not) this could be. If the appropriate channel is the SPFL and if they were to take some kind of action (censure?) would/could they make McDougall apoligize for content ? If LFC is somehow warned or censured but the chairman doesn't actually apoligize for content, how do we take it ? There exists the possibility that the LFC chairman has said what he has very deliberately, almost anticipates the reaction and wants to force an issue. He certainly showed a reluctance to nip the 'problem' in the bud when given the opportunity, this whilst fully knowing the level of anger caused. Regards the club and it's board, they don't care. We are a corporate vehicle to make money and just so happen to be a football club. However, they (their spin-doctor(s)) may surf the wave of anger and try and use it to their advantage if they need to divert attention or appear as 'caring'. Personally, I think they hope we forget about it.
  20. buster.
    Regards the level of detail that was given, as I said last night I would have appreciated a little more. At the sametime I understand that the full details wouldn't be forthcoming as any process takes it's course. For me, 'a little more' would have simply been a few words to tell us which 'channel' is being used. ie. to confirm media reports about it being the governing body and/or to tell us if we have instructed lawyers to go down the legal route ? I think that is both reasonable and sits within any legal restrictions I can think of. Otherwise you seemingly get more info from the Evening Times.
  21. buster.
    Good effort GD, You had him bang to rights with the e-mail (September 25th) that he didn't reply to. I think that he has answered you this time because the e-mail he replies to is 'more straightforward' and less embarrassing from his perspective. It's becoming a habit that there is so much misleading fog, spin and uncertainty as we approach AGMs, I think it must be a sp.iv custom.
  22. buster.
    Bump for the day of the race.
  23. buster.
    A few thoughts. - I think you need a couple of people from each group to all sit down and get the ball rolling. - There also needs to be a will and a recognition that Rangers FC is the common cause and that self interests be left at the door. - Anyone who has had previous issues might want to step back from frontline in the general interest (this should be self-policed from within groups and not become a matter for any joint meeting) - No-one from or with connections to the club should be involved.
  24. buster.
    A little more detail would be appreciated. Is it via the SPFL as reported in the media ?
  25. buster.
    Is this some kind of online kinkiness 'mods' get involved in ?
×
×
  • 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.