buster.
-
Posts
13,902 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
103
Everything posted by buster.
-
Seems as though it's around the usual 'average attendence' at Parkhead throughout the season, ie. mid-fortiesK. The difference being is that it will be the actual number of bums on seats.
-
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me three times........????????????
-
Easdale proxies = Continuation in large part of what went before AGM. "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark." Shakespeare
-
Doesn't show this group of supporters in a particularly bright light. Would you expect their logic behind their club politics to be any 'brighter' ? I think I'm right in saying that most of those connected with this line have been consistent in mistaken judgements wrt to club politics. If anything they should serve as an 'early warning system'.
-
Momentum is growing. Between ST numbers and the production (not talk) of alternative merchandice the 'sp.iv status quo' is not going to last. The vital signs are:- - the unpoliticised middle rump of the support no longer have confidence in how the club is being run and have in good part withdrawn up-front money. - actions are now being taken (opposed to talk). - the now 'traditional' divisory tactics (of board/longterm) are presently having limited effect.
-
This is where the sp.ivs have been clever. Many of their direct or indirect 'earners' are tied in with fan spend, money that is traditionally regarded as 'funding the club'. Look at the argument that goes.... A. Where has the 70M gone ? B. It's all accounted for in accounts audited by Deloittes. My question would be: Can you see proportional benefit to the club from the 70m spent ? I don't think anyone could objectively answer 'yes'. So, where has it gone ? In the business review, Graham Wallace made a point of mentioning "onerous contracts" which RIFC or/and TRFC are tied into and obviously are not weighted in favour of the club. Apparently some or all of these contracts were signed without the presence of lawyers. These may represent a 'lead weight' for the club going forward and an excellent earner for others. So we come back to where we started, your quoted post above. We are left in a situation whereby to fund the club's continued existence, we will also be the cash cow for those on the favourable side of the 'onerous contracts', a lead weight that means constant austerity. Over and above that we still have the bonus culture alive and kicking. Problem is with the above, the club will enter a downward spiral that will end in a dark place. So when you speak of "existence", bear that in mind. There are rumours that the beneficiaries of some of the onerous contracts reside in the Easdale Proxies.
-
The official site put up the following today......... When I looked at the official site at the beginning of this week it already had the TO opening this weekend with the same timings. Is McMurdo Jnr. working for the club website aswell ?
-
Can't make out the text other than the headline. .
-
Well organised, good looking top and a very effective signal.
-
A way to go? Murrayfield naming rights £20million...
buster. replied to compo's topic in Rangers Chat
Daniel Stewarts are probably getting pulled up by their bank manager as we type !! Apparently their finances are in a bad state. -
A couple of days ago I thought that GW might be somewhere in the middle but if you look at the make-up of the board and respective backgrounds, then place them accordingly in respect to the actual situation..............it suggests that the disagreement/split is as follows. Easdale. James...(front for Sandy who is front for the 'proxies' including the anonymous) plus David Somers (first man appointed to what was left of the board (2 men)) At this point the dominant shareholders were the Easdale proxies and the Green friendly Nomad, Daniel Stewart recommended the appointment. ie. Somers = more or less a proxy placeman. Just after this Scott Gardiner turned the CEO role because he refused to be essentially a puppet....................(of the proxy block) v Then you have Crighton of Laxey being appointed as Laxey steadily increased their stake. So with the above you would have a 2 v 1advantage to the Easdale proxies in any vote. However a week after Crighton of Laxey arrives,......... Wallace of the 120 days is appointed. So as I see it, to have what could be regarded as a split between 4 boardmembers,........ Wallace would have to lean towards whatever the Laxey strategy-tactics are. As I said a couple of days ago some of the Easdale proxies were around and possibly have direct involvment in the Case of the vanishing 70M (in part). Perhaps some of the "onerous contracts" are in someway linked to them and Wallace leans towards a 'straighter type of sp.iv'. Note. Re division............Think what Sandy Easdale said in the infamous doorstep interview that just happened 'by co-incidence' and then what Wallace delivered in the business review. .
-
Bottomline The board of RIFC (plus Sandy Easdale) had the choice to engage with them or not,...... they did.
-
The RIFC board seem to think them legitimate and/or relevant because they were prepared to sit down with them. What's important and IMO the reason the board are taking them seriously is that the large 'unpolitized middle rump' of the Rangers support which over the years the club have been able to depend on have now in large part effectively given a vote of no-confidence in the RIFC board. That 'middle ground' are in part starting to awaken.
-
It looks as though Alan Clark gets to an anonymous but important and continuous issue that doesn't go away no matter who you have on the board to flank Mr.Easdale. Namely those or some of those who have given Sandy Easdale their voting rights. Let's say the apparent disagreement/ division is between the Easdale proxies and Laxey. You'd have a board where the in the Easdale proxy corner you'd probably have James Easdale and David Somers. In the Laxey corner is Crighton with probably Wallace. Note that the strings (puppet) that extend from James to Sandy may well not stop but in fact extend further to the unidentified proxies. Thoughts ?
-
A way to go? Murrayfield naming rights £20million...
buster. replied to compo's topic in Rangers Chat
I think education around life in general is literally 'spinning' out of control. The increasing trends towards a general lack of accountibility or refusal to take responsibility can be correlated to the increase in the so-called PR industry. The way this industry has in part develpoed is having a grave effect on that novel concept, 'the truth'. The next generation will know of nothing else. -
Yes,... and you have to consider who was on the board at that time and ask who (board and/or shareholder(s)) was laying down that condition. Board Stockbridge Easdale. James Somers (7/11/13)..recommended by Daniel Stewart (Green friendly Nomad) Just after the Gardiner refusal (reported in media on 15/11/13)..... Crighton was appointed (14/11/13) Then Wallace (20/11/13) ps. my understanding is that the media were correct on the main reason why SG refused.
-
Learning a new swimming stroke in shark infested waters.
-
Bottomline is that each individual has an economic choice or decision to make wrt the ST question. As it stands it would seem as though a large percentage are delaying or have decided not to renew/buy. With that in mind it would seem as though the board of the club decided to engage with the UoF. What is important here is that the board of the club made this decision based on the deficit between projected and actual ST numbers at this point in time. Ie. the board perceive that the UoF vehicle and their fundamental aims are in good part favourably recognized by many of those who haven't renewed or pledged to 1872 Ltd.
-
I think the number that is most important is projected ST's less actual ST's. It will probably need a regulatory notice to tell the markets because of the 'hole' it makes in projected numbers.
-
Just a sitrep that I don't think contained anything new. The stand-off continues. Let's see if today brings any communications from board to UoF.
-
Just to add on the apparent split/disagreement within the boardroom. If GW was in the middle, will he have to consider his 100% bonus given that the trigger(s) are non-specific and depend on the judgement of the renumeration committee. Remuneration and Nominations Committee James Easdale (Chairman)...................................Blue Pitch / Margarita Norman Crighton...................................................Laxey David Somers...........................................................?? / Note: Was recommended by Daniel Stewarts Ltd who have always been close to Green Graham Wallace (attendee)
-
Sometimes it's best to read the story and any quotes before reading too much into the headline but it doesn't sound good or for that matter, unsurprising.
-
-
Brahim has just set his alarm. For the avoidance of doubt, that was a joke.
-
"Silly" ?...............I thought it was pretty much on the preverbial button. 1. 'Old mucker' referred to a former FD of a board you 'supported'. 2. Brian Stockbridge is now officially toxic and in part to blame for things this board want to wash their hands of ! I and others saw him as toxic from the summer of 2012. Others such as Somers and yourself have rather belatedly come to that view. 3. The camera refers to dubious tactics of 'innocently' attempting to drop someone in it using a social occasion although I do appreciate different levels.