buster.
-
Posts
13,902 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
103
Everything posted by buster.
-
The then SPL were in a poor negotiating position back in the day and to keep what was the existing deal in place seems to have had costs (including this pyt.). .....This would seem to be because the TV company was giving up on benefits (OF matches).
-
Thank's for the reply Frankie ! Regards 'division' between 'groups'. I think the numbers involved on one side makes this 'division' relatively unimportant and a disproportionate amount of time and energy seems to be spent on it. Regards the board meeting with VB. On the face of it, fair enough but I'd also say it fair comment that the timing, the general VB politic of supporting the custodian and the longterm tactic of various incarnations of the board to divide opposition have to be taken into account. My guess is that detail (part or whole) of said meeting will be released. That it will sound eminently sensible but will be largely empty in the same way a newspaper Q&A can be. Off the top of my head I think there is precedent with Stockbridge prior to the AGM (TBC). That said, many such meetings with other groups have resulted in a similar way. The issue at present though is obviously tangible, ie. the assets and here we have a stand-off. Whilst the 'large apolitical middle rump' are in good number voting by not renewing it does position them somewhere on the UoF side of the debate. Hence the meetings and communications that presently have more import are between the club and the 'middle rump/ UoF'. Regarding meetings in general They would seem to be of limited value because the various incarnations of the board in recent years have proved to be untrustworthy and disengenuous. The crux of the matter is the lack of trust and the ongoing unwillingness to give meaningful transparency to try and create some. Here you come back to the ST numbers and an effective vote of No-Confidence in the executive board.
-
There seems to be a polarized line in communication from the VB. ie. Some of it is considered and well written but much of it, as you refer to is 'downright bzarre'. It could perhaps point to the heid yins not being able to control or wanting to control general 'output'. I've tried to ask this before and will once more.....How many are in the VB's ? Don't need an exact number.......but is it more/less than 200, 500, whatever ?? Frankie, see my post above (55) why IMO the 'divisions' are at the moment less important than we think and why we should be concentrating more effort on more important issues.
-
Have a look at the football club. Football operation including infrastructure such as scouting network State of Ibrox stadium Management of Edmiston House etc., etc. and tell me if you see the proportional benefit of 70M ? yes or no Did this article you refer to mention the term 'onerous contracts' ?
-
The then SPL were in a poor negotiating position back in the day and to keep what was the existing deal in place seems to have had costs (including this pyt.). .....This would seem to be because the TV company was giving up on benefits (OF matches).
-
If there was such a thing as 'petition management', it might be an idea to disable any automatic e-mail generation* but accept the free publicity. I think petition numbers are currently at the level of approximate ST renewals reported around a week ago. * dependent to a degree on the wording of the communication between SoS and Levy&McRae.
-
Rather than the merits or otherwise of whatever fan group you care to mention' date=' or for that matter any bad feeling between individuals/groups ........ isn't it more important to get as close to the bottom as you can get of the motivations, MO and merits or otherwise of the actual executive board because ST numbers tell us a great deal of the support aren't happy with them ?[/b'] I think the most significant issue regards the fans at the moment is not recognized groups as such. It is the large middle rump who up until 2014 have been pretty much apolitical and just followed the team. It is within this group where there has been a change and whilst some will be fed-up with the football, the majority of them no longer have trust in the current board, the way they run the club and their longterm motivations. In other words it's a vote of no-confidence in the board from the customers of the PLC. So if this group is the most important in terms of volume, shouldn't their opinion weigh heavy when considering how to go forward. Their general concerns are close to those of the UoF and when you talk of "meaningful, constructive or informative dialogue with the board" that's all very well but what happens if communications aren't so because the board are disengenuous, misleading and fail to honour such simple things as a phonecall ? Why not forget the divisions, think of the majority of ST holders and concentrate efforts on the executive board ? ps. I've modified a previous post and Just in case you missed it or were in a rush first time round..............
-
This move from Easdale will only increase signatures on the petition. I think there has been around a hundred more in the last 10 minutes or so.
-
'Harrassment' would IMO be very difficult to make stick given circumstances. Perhaps they want to be embarrassed in court when you go through the details of why a petition/protest is necessary. Perhaps they want to say we are customers of a PLC and not 'loyal supporters' of a football club, as is their want when it suits. Good effort Craig. Keep the good fight going, the 'apolitical large middle rump' of the support don't seem to trust the board either when you look at the ST renewal estimates. This is an important development. Something from earlier
-
Thank's ! Ball park estimate ?...........anyone Any thought's on the meat of the post ?
-
It's the type of thing people who didn't have the longterm future of the club in their thoughts, would do.
-
I don't think this was particular piece of info was known at the time. SDM/Lloyds were pushing this through come hell or high water. The IBC was essentially a futile exercise.
-
Lloyd's sent their man in to facilitate such a deal. Further down the line they got more money through the sale of Edmiston House and the Albion Car Park.
-
Back before CW even took over, all it took was a google search to find out that he had 'history' that was worth investigating further.
-
I don't think this is a good appointment at all. Tears and No Trophies.
-
-
I think the balance of probabilities within the current state of play suggests there won't be an insolvency event in the short-term (next 6 months). However given the fluidity of the situation, it would be unwise to rule anything out and not to think about potential consequences. Corporate vultures have executive control and will lay metaphorical mines or in other words have contingencies for whatever happens. Hence, whatever follows there would be a substantial cost or lead weight to carry. We are in a place where the agenda has no painless route available. On the other hand you have to take into consideration a more gradual fading away death in stages, as we have the marrow continually sucked out of the club by corporate vultures.
-
BH, I'm not trying to be smart and say "I got it right whilst you got it wrong" because that isn't important. The reason that I have laboured the point regards your erroneous judgement call on Charles Green is that I think it relevant, I'll try and explain why. You are obviously an intelligent man with experience in football, finance and as an office bearer. As such you'd expect your opinion to be considered and valued, I'm sure it is. However, it is because of these relevant qualifications, intelligence and detailed attention you pay to issues Rangers............ it doesn't quite sit right with me that you didn't smell a rat with Green. What I am saying is that your considered judgement on such general calls may be suspect or interested. It may be that you are good at analysing the seperate details but find it more difficult to bring the whole picture together, one that includes 'other issues' (of which there are many at Ibrox).............Or simply you may have 'interests' that shape your 'public' judgement calls. The relevance for whoever wants to, is to bear this in mind.
-
You touch on a fear of mine, that over time they have been used by others as a tool in an ongoing effort to nuture division within the support. Jack Irvine has played a prominent part in this strategy, one that goes back to SDM times.
-
If anyone who knows about VB numbers could tell us, I'd be grateful. Re. meeting............On the face of it, neither do I. My post was more to do with proportional voice/attention.
-
Let's consider the VB in terms of numbers. I don't have an exact figure but is it fair to say that it doesn't reach three digits ? So whilst as individuals they have as much right to their opinion as any other Bear, as a group they are very small and by itself their collective voice means little in the grand scheme of things. One observation given their size is that they enjoy disproportionate attention from the club and generally throughout 'Beardom'. It could be argued that the attention they get from the club both pre and now post AGM is because they tend to be sympathetic towards the board, strongly opposed to much larger opposing groups, relatively very loud and have an important contact within the club. Wrt Beardom (including social media), they are disproportionately loud, sometimes abusive, have a track record in judgement calls that should have them used as an 'early warning system' to detect 'dodgy custodians' and really beg to be marginalised to what may be regarded as a proportionate level. I have noted that they do seem to be a socialable bunch as they often offer to meet you at X bar or outside Ibrox.
-
Yes and it is in the hope that they might reflect on their experiences and learn from them.
-
When corporate vultures get a hold of a distressed business, they don't let go easily and there will usually be different stages of sucking on the marrow. Whilst they have their claws dug deep, no matter the front (changing of the guard) the motives will remain the same but the MO will vary according to circumstances. I haven't been on any threads where I have seen what you could call abuse and the FF mods would delete it anyway. I can imagine there being criticism but you have to expect a degree of this on social media. Personally I think it's a personal economic decision for individuals to take and whilst I may not agree with it, it isn't really anything to do with me.
-
Football managers look forward and take one game at a time. But the bookies look back at the form as part of a process to lay the odds. A good football manager may have a 55-60% success rate A bookie will have considerably more.
-
For once, try learning from experience or reflecting on it. It'd be more constructive and might help you not repeat your mistakes.