buster.
-
Posts
13,902 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
103
Everything posted by buster.
-
"Should the Club suffer a substantial decrease in season ticket income in the next two months, then it would be unable to trade in the short term without seeking additional external funding as previously disclosed in the RIFC December 2013 interim results. " ----- "The Club acquired a number of players in Summer 2013 that, based on financial forecasts, it should have known that it could not afford. " http://www.rangers.co.uk/images/staticcontent/documents/RangersBusinessReview.pdf "The board of Rangers (the "Board") can confirm that approximately 17,000 season tickets have been renewed to date for the Club's forthcoming SPFL Championship season. This level of renewals reduces the potential requirement for short term financing as highlighted in the Business Review Summary published on 25 April 2014 particularly given the updated season ticket pricing structure for the 2014/15 campaign." http://rangers.g3dhosting.com/regulatory_news_article/381
-
Passed my mind that there may be a provisional plan to change the management team at some point before next season (15/16).
-
Very possibly. We only have to wait for 3 weeks or so before we know if they'll appeal it.
-
Fair enough but why not do that with Boyd who is worth 20+ goals in the top tier and has no significant injury history to speak of ?
-
Yes, but I doubt that at this stage the HMRC have decided whether to appeal or not. They may have had a 'steer' regards 'first impression' but that wouldn't correspond with what AH said. I'd also mention that AH isn't a habitual guest on TV and is more liable to have taken a flyer to support her argument. That said, the people you mention along with Roy Greenslade, Paul Holleran etc..... have of course been active regards Rangers and their telephone/e-mail records over the past couple of years (if at GCHQ) would be interesting to listen to/read.
-
Fair enough, aslong as we remember where the main problems ly.
-
Two years opposed compared to what was becoming a standard 12 months. Thoughts ?
-
Media coverage during the ongoing saga has been characterised by ignorance, bullshit, a lack of 'homework', a lack of budget, willingness to publish copy as given to them by spindoctors. etc, etc. There were times I felt like throwing my computer out of the window when the likes of Dodds and Spiers conversed on corporate matters. This has definately helped to keep the support confused and divided.
-
I doubt very much that she knows that HMRC will appeal or not. It came out because it helped her delivery and efforts to sound convincing to a neutral/uninformed audience. This was one of the things I referred to earlier in the thread.
-
Generally, media coverage of what is a complex and ongoing soap opera at Ibrox has been sub-standard and inadequate regards informed and unbiased comment. This more than anything has been damaging for our support in that confusion has been the constant order of the day and has worked in favour of those in and around the Rangers boardroom. Wrt BBC Scotland in particular, I think it worth mentioning how some of their reporters have been consistently used by Jack Irvine/MH. In particular Chris McLaughlin and Alaisdair Lamont. It's one thing getting 'exclusives', it's quite another being complicit in putting out misleading information or favourable coverage on publicly funded national radio/TV. eg. 2012/McLaughlin/Naqvi......... and.......... 2013/Lamont/AGM/'not worth voting'
-
edit. Transferred to another more apt thread.
-
What is 'pathetic', is the tone of your posts on this matter. I've wrote on another thread as to what I think of the 7 minute clip and how it was covered by BBC Scotland.
-
Do you do 'stand-up' ?
-
Craig Houston isn't representative of our support because he has actually got up and done his best to act against those who are taking advantage of owning our club for their own ends. Your post is inaccurate, unconstructive and representative of one of the main problems our support has had for some years now.
-
It's been a growth industry in recent years but then we have only poured petrol on the fire. Scottish football and more specifically the constantly active 'fault line' between all things Rangers and Celtic is what really makes this inevitable. From their pro-active moves to maximise damage on our club (eg. from early 2012: 'sporting integrity' bandwagon) to our reactions. It transends reallity and helps those directly invloved in the ensuing fog, to get away with what they do. It is a godsend to the likes of Jack Irvine and ultimately those who he works for. I would have said 'paid for' but the truth is that, as is customary, it's us the support (the cash cow) that indirectly pay. Neither is it going to change.
-
Last night's BBC piece showed in 7 minutes what has been happening these past few years. A media using two sides of an argument without serious recourse to relevant independent expertise. The argument coming from Haggerty being more precise with detail but tripping itself up in a couple of places. This reflecing the Celtic-minded websites. The argument coming from Craig Houston being very generalised and easily challangable. Generally, this reflects the Rangers social media. Confrontation: The first casualty of war is the truth. Makes it very easy for those in the midst of it all. Wholly unsatisfactory and inadequate coverage. Video link of last night https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkfQB62ANRQ
-
Of the more than 15,000 that take part in the predictions page where the Gersnet League is included, not one picked 1-7, although one did pick 3-7 (perhaps in the memory of Di Stefano?).
-
How would they benefit from any 'compensation'? Do you really think some of the Blue Pitch and Margaritas of this world want increased focus upon what has went before ?
-
The board of RIFC won't consider it their fight. They are there to act in the interests of the shareholders who in the great majority want to make money out of the cash cow (the support) of a wholly owned subsidiary (TRFC).
-
The board of RIFC won't want anything to do with such issues that may concern TRFC unless they can harness them in such a way that gives them (RIFC) a net gain of some kind. The board of RIFC are treading carefully because they are nervous if a support become militant and sniff metaphorical blood because it may end up focusing on them. In the recent past, the board would have 'rode the wave' of discontent towards the authorities with strong words but little action. It served a short-term 'smash and grab' stage of the ongoing process very well. We should be wary of confused anger clouding other current issues with RIFC/TRFC.
-
That doesn't make sense to me ! When Green was CEO of RIFC (or post asset purhase), that owned the club (TRFC), the BTC wasn't an issue. -------------------------------------------- The article is imprecise as Green wasn't CEO at the time. He was trying to get money together to meet the 8.5M that a CVA would have required. However the BTC was still a red herring given that the CVA was never going to be approved and this would have been known at the time of Green speaking to Shepherd (see below). http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/rangers-in-crisis-freddy-shepherd-ready-1128202
-
In their defence you could say that they, their friends and associates are actually trying to inject some ironic humour into the situation or put another way,.... rip the p**h. Significant that they didn't want to mention money (in their usual corporatespeak of 'passionate fans backing the club').......... but instead used "energy and reslove" Funny that the "energy and resolve" falls on deaf ears when directed towards RIFC and of occasion may even result in lawyers letters in protest of the same "energy and resolve".
-
Most of them coming from and being caused by the boardroom of RIFC, their friends and associates along the way. "Energy & resolve"........are they too embarrassed to mention money ?
-
Of all the supporters groups / organisations that we have, it's been the SoS who have gone to the heart of ongoing issues and brought visible action to the 'party'. It's little wonder that there are supporters interested in discrediting them. Some of whom will look to discredit anyone or group who threaten the status quo / ongoing executive board (of holding company) and it's business. This, in part is down to the sown and nutured divide that Irvine and SDM created. Toxic Jack having a much easier job thereafter (just look at the last three years+). Some posters have a history of being directly involved in division regards supporters groups, posionous relationships thereafter and some say 'scheming'. It is predictable but rather ironic that those with this DNA like to preach on such matters. SOS have shown us that at this time, Action rather than decades of 'experience' that leads no-where (or worse) has been the order of the day. More power to their arm and less attention paid to those who seek to divert attention and discredit.
-
I'm not shy to have a go at the board but if I want to be balanced in my criticism, then AMcC has been and is the equivalent to 'fools gold', on and off the pitch.