Jump to content

 

 

buster.

 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    14,194

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    111

 Content Type 

Everything posted by buster.

  1. buster.
    They always said that the Vikings tended have one-sided business dealings.
  2. buster.
    Fish and Dolphin eaters together point to an all-together different flavour of conspiracy.
  3. buster.
    Whilst you refer to the Norwegies, didn't our pre-season games against the Highland League sides back then result in Rangers signing the Inverness striker, Billy Urquhart ?
  4. buster.
    I'd imagine many of the threads will be of similar content to current Rangers forums. He can also have a go at brown brogues (Elvis) if he so wishes.
  5. buster.
    Everyone to their own but.........
  6. buster.
    Thank's Willie !!
  7. buster.
    The AGM provided the current board with executive control and a mandate from the majority of shareholders. As you alude to, there is something similar wanted from the support (or customers) when it comes to ST's. That something obviously involving the important matter of cashflow.
  8. buster.
    Or Proxy Puppets ?
  9. buster.
    Touch, a, barge poll, don't, with.
  10. buster.
    IIRC back in those days we often went up to the Highlands for a couple of pre-season friendlies. How things have changed with that Inverness side of back then. Did we not go over to Norway a couple of times to play Viking Stavanger (sp) ?
  11. buster.
    Yes, the two issues do go hand in hand with the Nth.American tour being an example of this. Some other commercial contracts/discussions may reflect the more intangible 'brand' damage we have and are suffering.
  12. buster.
    The contract or part was leaked, it says that loans must be paid back when sufficient ST or other monies 'clear'. Don't have it front of me but IIRC pointed to prioritizing the repayment of the loans. That said we've just had the Ibrox 'payday'(salaies). What seemed notable was the seeming reluctance of the board to communicate with George Lethem on the number of renewals. The board seem to have batoned down the hatches as they figure out a way between varying arguments as to the way ahead. This may be effected by the number of ST's and judging by previous communications on the matter (business review included) I think they are attempting to wait until the second half of June. You may or may not find that a certain level of ST's are needed alongside any share issue options, before they bring in a DoF who in turn puts into motion a chain of events within the football operation. GW doing a similar 're-structuring/austerity drive' throughout the club. Money being required so as to in part, fund pay-offs. Or that dependent on numbers, certain options have to be discarded.
  13. buster.
    I think that it's probably more damaging at a commercial level. I think the bigger reputable firms will think twice before getting involved with us because of all that has and is going on. That includes the level of uncertainty. To a degree we are currently 'damaged goods'.
  14. buster.
    It's interesting or perhaps not surprising that the number chosen by the 'source close to the board' was the somewhat psychological 20K barrier.
  15. buster.
    1. Jackson knows the source. 2. He called it "close to the boardroom" 3. He was sceptical about the info in tweet. 4. He reafirms scepticism and infers he doesn't believe 'source close to boardroom'. 5. I see no official announcement Conclusion. Reafirms suspicions that the board are spinning a line. What kind of board would do that and why ?
  16. buster.
    Rich as the richest Russian Oligarch with Superyachts coming out of his ears. According to STB (a couple of weeks ago), the past isn't to be learned from and each situation is to be taken on it's merits. Consistency is cool. ------------------------------------------------------ However, in this case I agree with him. The business model and football operation both need torn-up and started again. But it needs a fresh approach undertaken by 'honest men' and not corporate sharks, so as the club gets the benefit and not the sharks. Unfortunatly, I can't see how this scenario develops. The 'old pals act' has IMO generally held us back and made some very wealthy for disproportionate added value. When you also get similar or worse at board level,.... then you're in big trouble.
  17. buster.
    Yes, just had a scan of the online Record and I can't see anything about it. Can someone on twitter please ask Jackson why that is. One of the reasons that it's been difficult to keep a hold on events these past few years is down to the huge amount of misleading spin that is thrown out there. It probably correlates with the amount of our money that has been used to pay spin doctors to work for the custodian of the day (including proxy group and their remit.) It will also reflect the urgency with which spin-doctors are replaced (in part?) opposed to other departments, eg. scouting.
  18. buster.
    Typical of the MO of the board No Transparency Copious amounts of Spin = No Trust It's very easy, the club officially announce 20,000 renewals and show transparency with a number that would be considered a relative success.
  19. buster.
    Every shareholder should e-mail the club asking for confirmation or otherwise of this number. Press speculation via "source close to the board" on a price sensitive issue (ST numbers currenly vital for business going forward) isn't the done thing in a normal business. (of course it couldn't be S.Easdale/Toxic......................Mr.Lamont doorstepping big brother wouldn't do in this case) Apparently in their rush to tell George Lethem the good news, they forgot to send the e-mail.
  20. buster.
    "Sources close to RFC board" Sounds to me like leaking a number that is probably not accurate (ie.overstated) by a method that the board can shrug their shoulders and say "nothing to do with me Guv". A method that we have been subjected to for years. Slight change to "Ibrox Insider" or "Source close to the Club" etc. If 20,000 ST's had been renewed do you not think the board would have announced it and taken advantage of the free publicity to push for more on the back of it ? If a lot less than 20,000 STs' hadn't been renewed might you leak a number to the press in an effort to break the resolve of the middle apolitical rump of the support ? Message to the board......... Engage with the support with transparency and tell us how many ST's have been renewed officially,.................... we are sick of spin.
  21. buster.
    Yes, I'd agree with most of that. Post admin., supporters didn't appear to have much choice (that was palatable in short-term) and it was those Bears who were in and around negotiations with D&P and then with Green&Co who weren't able/prepared to go the extra financial mile or five that missed their chance/ were given large fences to jump over. To starve them out pre 2012/13 was a difficult 'sell' and so there was little effort made towards this. 70M pounds later, many are bloated but the club is on it's kness. As a support at various levels we seem to get 'it' wrong far too often. Obviously it's a large and varied constituency which has been preyed upon by spin doctors. Over time, mindsets have been introduced and thereafter divisions, sown and nutured. As a club we are a case study as to how modern capitalism (employing spin in a BIG way) can prey on a football club.... Ally knew fine well that they couldn't be trusted but once the WS/McColl efforts had floundered decided to go with the flow, help keep the business going and his job. However and IMO the penny shares stick in the throat regardless. They say that it's aswell that Ally is there on the 'inside' but the reallity is that he's been of more use to the custodians than the support. For the support he's been like a 'comfort blanket' that in reallity doesn't exist.
  22. buster.
    Can you define "normal" please. I have an idea of what you infer but do you mean a suatainable "normal", which in actual fact would be something very new. Or running the club at a level that needed CL football to breakeven, which back in the day was normal. Or does it simply refer to breaking the hold that the corporate sharks have on us ? I'm coming to the conclusion that we are in so deep, so entrenched in spi.vdom, their 'onerous contracts', increasingly unhappy & scunnered support, no money, no-one prepared to pay the large sack of money that would be required........ that the outlook is very dark. Financially, politically and socially we are in a bad way and I'm struggling to see how, after recent history and looking towards realistic prospects for Scottish football.............. we make a full recovery.
  23. buster.
    It's not hindsight, I was saying the same thing at the time. There were quite a few (not all on messageboards) who saw through Green and his bullshit all the way through. More especially from some individuals closer to what was going on. Some of what was behind this wasn't any old bullshit rumour, but neither was it absolute conclusive evidence. John Brown was involved, knew details not in the public ambit including CW and what seemed to eventually turn into claim/Sevco 5088. As I said, there was never absolute information and I believe/speculate that Bomber took the decision or was advised to go down the 'deeds' route when on the Ibrox steps. I think some of those Bears I spoke of had decided to 'go with the flow' rather than have the club enter into a cash crisis. (as per previous post) They thought matters could be addressed in an ongoing manner. What I would say is that generaly the online Bears regarded as financial experts got Green spectacularly wrong. I saw them take in the corporate speak, the numbers, the IPO, the order of things, and accept it as in the main, a logical path for the business to take. What I think they failed to take into consideration was the capacity of some to bullshit. Nor perhaps have many experienced quite such a complex and misleading strategy from City sharks as we've been witnessing at Ibrox.
  24. buster.
    They committed to addressing 'communication and engagement' last year and have to be seen to be doing something. By not actually addressing it themselves in a practical way when it's a vital aspect of going forward within the current impasse, would be laughable if it were not so serious an issue.
  25. buster.
    "Plastic engagement" They should try some practical engagement when it matters.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.