buster.
-
Posts
13,902 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
103
Everything posted by buster.
-
Taking King out of it for a moment, the UoF independently seek real engagement, answers and transparency from the executive board. It would seem something that is in the interests of the support in general and is the actual tangible matter in which the support can actually play a part. There is much more of an urgent and timely onus on the actual executive board to be transparent rather than someone who may or may not play a part in the future.
-
Martin Williams of The Herald and Bill McMurdo are examples of the above. Levels of corporate governance at Ibrox are in the gutter apart of course when it comes to not saying anything to the fans. Mr.Wallace brings us plastic intiatives regards communication & engagement whilst refusing to engage on anything meaningful. Mr.Wallace tells us everything is fine when there is a disconect with a large number of the support (revenue stream) and frantic meetings are held to try and agree on a stance that will present a stable image. Mr.Easdale, a convicted fraudster that some say is like a 'shadow director' of RIFC, tells us things are 'fragile', watches the share price tumble and buys a large block of shares before it recovers. (Note that the co-incidental doorstep interview used one of Irvines BBC conduits, Lamont who happened to have a cameraman with him) Mr.Toxic buzzes around like a fly around shite. A look at his client list of the past reveals a rogues gallery who prey on the vulnerable (an MO that Merlin (in his guise as preacher) isn't a stranger to). Restricting it to Rangers you have the remits coming from SDM, CW, CG&Co, Easdale&Co. Now you have the club/Easdale misleading the support about Irvine. When Irvine is involved, you can be sure no good will come to the club, as per his long involvement has helped facilitate the chain of events that have brought us to where we are today.
-
From the The Daily Mail, 20/8/2013........ "In a statement, Jack Irvine - spokesman for The Easdale family - said: 'Charles Green has given first refusal of his shares to Sandy Easdale as he promised. Sandy may take all or some of the shareholding depending on the strategic requirements of other potential investors.'" Full article at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2397944/Charles-Green-stand-Rangers-role-sell-shares.html
-
The board has it's priorities. 'Spin before you Scout'
-
Merlin Launches New Rangers Supporters Club - Loyal And True
buster. replied to ian1964's topic in Rangers Chat
Confuse, Divide and Control to order. This stems from those in and around the board. -
Wishing for objective and quality reporting from the redtops is futile and anyone doing so should know they are wasting their time. Is it not a greater shame and importance that we can't believe a word that comes out of the Rangers boardroom ? And regards transparency, are the VB ready to expand on issues they discussed with the board a few weeks ago ?
-
It has been mentioned that Ally's 'wagecut' was or was probably a wage deferral. Forlan was central to this discussion and IIRC was of the opinion that deferral most likely. This could mean it getting increasingly difficult (financially) for the board to terminate Ally's contract. More if's and but's. However, if the footballing strategy mapped out in the business review is to be seriously implemented, I can't reconcile it with Ally and his staff staying.
-
Finance isn't Jackson's bag but I read the article and as a layman don't see anything that makes me think he refers to anything other than the 43.4M shares as per business review. Especially given that he doesn't mention anything about the need to call an EGM and that he states the offer will be made to existing shareholders. The question is what do they plan to do with the money. Is Ally safe ?...he's certainly insulated himself regards a pay-off, it'd probably cost 7 figures, including wage deferrals.
-
Frankie, I'm no financial expert but it looks to me as the 8M headline refers to the 43.4M shares, as per solution to ST shortfall in the business review. Perhaps Forlan or Bluedell could tell us. The sp.iv process of taking advantage of a distressed company was always going to have different stages, people involved and MO's. As for theories going forward, look for the way that makes the sp.ivs the most money and could be termed as doable, all things considered.
-
It'll be in the interests of the mysterious shareholders, friends and associates to keep the show rolling as they will be earning from 'onerous contracts' and the like. However if they want to do that they will have to reduce the costbase or you keep throwing money down a blackhole and the same solvency problem keeps returning. To reduce the costbase you need to spend money paying people off or settling contracts. Now if the sp.ivs are forced to look at settling 'onerous contracts' of their own, friends or associates then I wonder if a fair portion of the money that would come into the coffers and then go straight back to them ? If they reduce the costbase, they may call an EGM to try and enable them to carry out an equity fundraising share issue (different from the share issue to existing shareholders as per DR story/8M headline/ see below). Here they would probably dangle carrots. They can't have it all ways and this was always going to be the problem. ie. Rangers don't generate enough revenue to service 2 gravytrains and function as a club. The 'sp.iv process' will hope the fans will drift back and finance their ongoing, legal and slowburn robbery. Meanwhile the assets will be lined up and sooner or later, it'll be their turn to keep the show rolling. The corporate vultures continue the process of sucking what they can out of a distressed company. They don't have a happy ending. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From Business Review (April 2014) Re. Share issues I think the 8M headline (DR) refers to the 43.4M shares in 3rd paragraph. Approx.........43.4M @ 18.5p = 8M
-
Bump for the Marshalls. Obvious gig for the poster WATP_Greg !!
-
Bump for the Marshalls. Obvious gig for the poster WATP_Greig !!
-
Aye, all mine are now in aswell. Is the prize anything to do with a couple of weeks in Bermuda ?
-
Merlin Launches New Rangers Supporters Club - Loyal And True
buster. replied to ian1964's topic in Rangers Chat
The Super Abundance Preacher receptive to cheques who happens to have a mini-PR consultancy aswell. Billy Bullshit could be an accurate moniker. -
Zappa, you are currently in 24th and last in the current league standings. The only way is up
-
I don't think that is accurate. I often drone on about multi-layered gravytrains at Rangers and Ally has been with many others, a benefactor of the gravytrain that traditionally runs within the footballing operation. The more relatively recent arrival of the gravytrain that runs in and around the boardroom is a different animal. What Ally has done IMO, is along the way facilitate the running of the boardroom gravytrain or decife/refuse to do anything meaningful that might threaten it. This usually happens when both trains have a vested interest. At the same time, it needs to be said that Ally is in a difficult politcal position if he wants to maintain his role as manager. However I don't buy the line that it is better that Ally is on the inside because he has been used by the sp.ivs to greater effect than anything going the other way.
-
What was an important selling point from the POV of the sp.ivs coming to Ibrox was that there was an infrastructure already in place for spin and bullshit and that over a period of time the general support had become 'conditioned' to it. Mindsets had been pushed and had been formed withing the support/groups which looked to divide meaningful opposition or searches for accountability. Jack Irvine of Mediahouse with his remit from SDM had been remarkably successful and became the 'continuity bridge' for incoming sp.ivs as the process moved from one stage to another. Irvine has played a vital role and that is why like a bad smell, he doesn't seem to go away.
-
It could be argued that the comment "business as usual" was extremely accurate. We could really do with a change.
-
That brings you back to the game of always that leads no-where. The only way to effect this is cut off their money supply. What you've got is some who want 'the show' to continue, so as they directly or indirectly continue to benfit from the 'onerous contracts' etc and others perhaps keener to position the assets to their best advantage sooner rather than later. It's like having an option of........ how do you want your club to fade away ? Of course someone could pay well over market price for a controlling stake but I wouldn't think that likely at this stage.
-
It's how spi.vs like the support to be. They are probably pleasantly surprised at how easy it has been.
-
Strategically, I don't think it is either Wallace or Easdale. Wallace has little meaningful independence and Easdale will be getting instructions from those within his voting block. There seems to be two main power blocks regards strategy, Easdale&Co and Laxey with the former probably holding sway.
-
First, it will probably be a share issue announced at the sametime as ST shortfall. Second, they could use that money to finance running costs (won't last that long/months) or in good part finance pay-offs, scrapping of contracts to get the costbase down. Easdale voting block, friends and associates would want any (onerous) contracts they have an interest in to continue or to be settled favourably. If contracts continue Easdale&Co would be interested in Rangers staying solvent to keep milking the club. If they don't the assets will go sooner rather than later.
-
Is it a cunning plan ? The one where everyone expects something different after the business review and they do the same as always ? or
-
Is it surprising where we are today ? We have a multi-layered spinfest to protect their multi-layered gravytrain. Omnishambles that needs torn up from the boardroom to Auchenhowie.
-
Wallace rolls out mostly empty corporatespeak that from day one has often been misleading and had scant relation to our actual situation. He is the semi-public voice that seeks to keep the heat off the board and buy time. "Semi" because he doesn't often do direct questioning and prefers to hide behind controllable press articles, twitter O&G's and the 'Paxmanlike' Rangers TV ! The other day he was talking about Ally and him planning, building and blending the squad with an eye towards the top tier. He didn't mention the 'Chief of Football Operations' (DoF) of the business review who perhaps will be appointed once the planning, scouting, building and blending is done. At the same time he talked of bringing in players which means spending money. So if there is money why not start with the scouting, DoF ? And if there is money why has George Letham not been paid ? Not forgetting this other line from the business review.......... "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 I wonder what the current financial forecasts look like ?