buster.
-
Posts
13,902 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
103
Everything posted by buster.
-
We have large numbers who are expressing their distrust of the board by not renewing their ST's, effectively a vote of no confidence. The groups on one side of the so-called 'division' are relatively small. Given the current situation and arithmetic within,......the easiest way of tackling 'division' within the support is to stop talking about it. Energies would be better used in other directions that lead to the root of the ongoing problem.
-
Every individual or group is entitled to their opinion, including the VB's. However given the current situation and arithmetic within,......the easiest way of tackling 'division' within the support is to stop talking about it.
-
Changing tact slightly BH,,................ shouldn't Mr.Easdale think about addressing the concerns of thousands of Rangers supporters at a time when the PLC is thousands of ST's down on what they would have projected ?
-
The attention the VB's get is totally out of proportion to their size. People talk of 'division'. I don't see significant division at present, I see the vast majority deeply unhappy with the way the club is being run. What is new, is that the majority I talk of now includes much of the 'apolitical middle rump' who in good number seem to not have renewed. Perhaps we should give the VB's attention that is proportional to their size.
-
In what way is it a reflection of the 'engagement study' ? Perhaps the discontent and lack of trust is more to do with how the board actually engage and communicate in real life.
-
Scottish football has been a strange old place in recent years and the pertinent questions pile rivals that of the mound of now disappeared banknotes in the 'Ibrox Gravytrain Robbery'.
-
The question of whether the SPFL were due to pay Rangers X pounds or not would surely be determined by commercial contracts in conjunction with SPFL rules and should be fairly clear-cut and I doubt that a leak like this would influence the determination of Rangers to seek payment if due. The leak itself seems to focus negative attention on the SPL (SPFL). edit. Did the Harry Hood (pubs) claim on the SPL ever come to anything ?......anyone
-
One could argue that the presence of Mr.Easdale and other board members at football matches causes 'alarm' within the support in general. So much so that ST numbers have fallen dramatically.
-
Current 'expectations' may and probably do mean significant financial problems. Budget projections may have been more optimistic. Given individuals involved and the track record on corporate goverence/timescales you could assume whatever you liked.
-
I simply disagree and believe the AIM rule 11 would apply IF renewals were significantly down on the comparitive stage last year. More especially given warning in the business review.
-
I doubt the SPFL (with same CEO as then SPL) would be happy with todays headlines so I doubt the leak wouldn't have come from them as a body. If what you are saying about the SPFL telling us we're not getting any money is true then there would be more motive or Rangers to do so but at the sametime it wouldn't achieve much. I'd have thought the leak is more likely to come from an individual involved whose real loyalties ly neither at Ibrox or with the SPFL.
-
Chairman Of Leeds Supporters Trust Backs Rangers Fans
buster. replied to chilledbear's topic in Rangers Chat
Do you prefer 'homebred dodgy geezers' ? Are you voting UKIP ? -
Does a significant drop in ST renewals effect:- - Financial Condition - Expectation of its performance (projections) In looking for the section within the business review it perhaps highlight the timescale the club are working to and justifying thre being no annoucement. 2 months would take you to second half of June. However is there an argument that if numbers are way down at this stage compared with last year and that they can give no good reason why this is suddenly going to change...................the 'without delay' part of the rule should be focussed upon.
-
You are filed under 'loyal but supine bendovers'
-
I appreciate your view and whilst my perspective is different, I can understand it. What I would say is that there had been efforts made to engage with the board and IIRC at the request of GW there was a meeting which resulted in an apparent broken promise to call UoF after the PLC board considered matters discussed at meeting. Thereafter (4 days) followed an in part disengenuous statement from the board. What you have is a fans group looking at all options to try and promote awareness and garner support to oppose and help prevent a selling off of the main assets by a board who clearly can't be trusted. If and when the assets have been transfered/soldthen then it's too late. Regards the legal question I don't see it likely that Mr.Easdale will have much success if he chooses to carry out his threat.
-
Petition at 5,000 signatures but how many ST's have been renewed ? And if the number is significantly down on last year why doesn't the PLC inform the market under AIM rule 11 'without delay' ? Under Aim rule 11 A company must issue notification without delay of any new developments which are not public knowledge concerning a change in: its financial condition; its sphere of activity; the performance of its business; or its expectation of its performance."
-
I think of the two you don't recognize that the one on the left might be Kenny Watson and the other (more of a guess) Martin Henderson.
-
However with the apparent legal threat from SE, it means a lot more will know of and sign the petition. First you had GW with his Twitter O&G (in some quarters it was called a Q&A). Now it would seem to me as Mr.Easdale wants to get in on the OG trail. So not only does the football spend or the executive board spend not give value for money.....neither does the Spinning dept.
-
So you have the small print of petition provider and importantly the 'indication' that this would happen within the particular petition's communication. - You have a sender with a connection to the receiver....(supporter/customer/shareholder) - A sender who seeks no commercial gain - A sender with a genuine and material concern reflected in communication (e-mails). - A receiver (PLC / football club) who may be having corporate goverence issues wrt informing markets/shareholders of relevant information in a timely way. - Office bearers (e-mail recipients) who engaged with fans on such matters then didn't phone them back as apparently promised but instead issued a disengenuous statement 4 days later. I get the feeling that this threat will go the way of the others. The important thing to not lose sight of is the material of the petition and surrounding issues.
-
I used the term 'indicated' that e-mails would be sent. See the link/petition http://www.change.org/petitions/graham-wallace-give-written-legally-binding-assurances-to-fans-that-ibrox-stadium-will-not-be-sold-or-used-as-security-for-any-loans?recruiter=83833912&utm_campaign=signature_receipt&utm_medium=email&utm_source=share_petition It could be equally argued that had the signer of the petition examined content that at the very least, they would see the 'indication' and have opportunity to contemplate the possibility. Thereafter you go to 'petition precedent' regards similar. You also have to take into account that the petition has been conducted via change.org and their experience in such matters may or should help petition intiatators stay within certain guidelines/the law.
-
But it wasn't the SoS sending the e-mails. The petition would seem to have been the intiative of the SoS but thereafter it was other individuals who 'signed' the petition (that indicated that GW and SE would receive e-mails) and when those individuals clicked on 'sign' it was they who were instructing the communications be sent. The SoS whose membership is I believe two would therefore be capable of sending two e-mails to both GW and SE.
-
If we take this particular case and ask a couple of questions. Does the sender who has links to receiver as a customer/supporter/shareholder have a right to hold to account / communicate with the receiver, the PLC/club (via officebearers) and do the senders have reasonable grounds for concern that the message contained within communication is of current relevance. ??
-
They had one opportunity, and that was the board of the SPL could have voted in favour of keeping Rangers in the SPL. Note. The outcome of such a vote wasn't a given but commercial interests could well have swayed it. However the SPL board didn't want the responsibility and pushed the decision upon the member clubs. The general momentum that had built up behind what is loosely called the 'sporting integrity bandwagon' meant that this vote was only going to go one way. Thereafter the commercial interests of the SPL wrt effect/timescale took a major blow with the later decision of SFL clubs regards what division Rangers would play football in. Part of this 'major blow' is now illustrated in the OP of this thread.
-
If you supply your e-mail address maybe they can let you know !! :seal:
-
You call for perspective DB....................... Ongoing ownership of Ibrox Stadium and other main assets or "Houston (and Co.)"