buster.
-
Posts
13,902 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
103
Everything posted by buster.
-
Thus far the ST marketing drive has certainly been low-key this year.
-
Sounds as if they come around about once a decade, the same frequency as decent European runs.
-
It's a little ironic that some seem to worry more about unsubstantiated claims of someone taking back part of what he put in rather than huge sums money of club income/IPO cash actually going out of the door without apparent and proportionate return.
-
The fundamantal motivations at executive board level at the two clubs are different and from this, trickles down MO, behaviour, type of fan engagement, etc, etc. The other day I mentioned the term " a perfect storm" (after 40 months of rain) regards all-encompassing and ongoing matters at Ibrox. Today the term may be "the (uneasy) calm before the storm" regards the current impasse.
-
Broadly speaking, yes and all the better if they can put some meat back on the bone. One for you, two for us, one for you, two for us................(arithmetic is imprecise) Keep it going and squeeze until another stage comes to an end. All the time we continue to fade away.
-
Agreed and it leads into / ties in with my first post on this thread. Wrote the following on another thread......... (Sharks for Wolves)
-
Permit me a small bit-part illustration. Ann Budge / Day One Talks of the future based on academy/ good scouting system and appoints chief scout. Graham Wallace / Day One Signs a contract with a 100% bonus clause based on 'foggy criteria'. GW / Day 156 Talks of the future based on academy/ good scouting system and appoints spin-doctor* I think it very revealing that the current board prioritize spin and that it goes to the heart of the matter........... No meaningful transparency or sufficient truth that in turn leads to No trust. * Tyrell was actually appointed a few days earlier.
-
There are two important differences between executive board control of Hearts and that of Rangers. One has the longterm interests of the football club very much at heart and as a priority,...........................the other doesn't. One is deserving of Trust,......................the other isn't.
-
Whether the arithmetic reaches 5,000 or not, I think the most important aspect of the UoF's influence, at this point in time has been to make thousands of fans think about the whole shooting match. To take a step backwards, see that you can't Trust the current board and question the logic of handing them up-front money to take control of. That is to say, for a fan to be in the 'middle group', they've taken an important step away from the conventional. This is huge in that we are talking about the 'rump' of the support, the supposed middle ground that were largely onside with the club and/or simply not interested in the politics. The biggest single reason for this IMO is TRUST, or rather the lack of. Over an increasingly long period of time Trust has been eroded and the word 'scunnered' comes into play. For some within this middle ground 'scunnered' includes the football on the park. IMO......... Trust (or lack of) is the basedriver for the arithmetic.
-
Going to be restricted today regardstime so will answer your post in parts. A long drawn out process has various stages (see Coventry/Leeds) with executive control that doesn't prioritize the club's longterm interests (eg. hedge funds). I don't think there has been a clean break between the Green&Co 'loads of cash in & loads of cash out' stage and the current stage of 'picking up the pieces/milk if/where possible/eventually position assets'. Green may or may not be history but let us say he has no input whatsoever regards Blue Pitch and Margarita,........who does ? why still in the dark ? why still there ? You mention the Easdales, they were in part 'groomed' as next to take over the 'frontseat' for those in the background. They were given the Mediahouse staged intro in the springtime of 2013 just as you were starting to realise that Charles Green wasn't what he had said he was. He must have shouted fairly loud for learned fans to ignore the what seemed like obvious signs that savvy business people might have reasonably been expected to at least question, this in turn leading to reasonable doubt. When the corporate sharks get a hold of a distressed business, the norm is that they squeeze out all the value they can and it takes time, going through different stages. They fight tooth and nail to retain control. This is where we are and for the sharks to relinquish executive control in a straightforward manner (ie. via the sale of a controlling stake) shares will be set at a prohibitive price that represents what they think they can make out of the business going forward.
-
Arithmetic: Important Trust: There is none Credit: Not available ......................( Trust issue but at a different level) Pain: Inevitable
-
You paint a picture of an honest and trustworthy board striving tirelessly to do their best for the club and that the only option for the humble supporter is to buy ST's and give our money to this noble executive board and trust them to what is right for our club. Perhaps I'm over-egging the pudding a little but only with a similar poetic licence. It's a horrible situation and part of the reason we are faced with it is because too many were fooled by Charles Green and argued that we had to fund the club that we loved. Where is that money (and the rest) today. We were told Green&Co have shares and will do their very best for the club because that it is obviously in their interests. Green was soon to go, bringing the Easdales in take his place in front of BPH and Margarita. The crux of our problem is that today we can't trust those in and around the boardroom. They are in it for the money and will spin rather than scout their way towards it, mislead rather than be up-front, lie instead of tell the truth, take 120 days instead of 30 etc., etc.......................It will be a slow fading away as life and money is sucked out of the club. IMO we need to do what is necessary to change what is becoming a Coventry/Leeds Utd dynamic, even if it means acute short-term pain. In an ideal world we buy a controlling stake but reallity is that no-one is willing to pay a prohibitive price and then invest in the club itself.
-
I was thinking along the lines of Motherwell, Rangers then Scotland.
-
I think most are supporters first and investors second but everyone is free to their opinion. I write that thinking in the longterm health and growth of the club.
-
TBF Strachan has done a good job this far in, considering. ps. I don't think it is any accident that Stuart McCall is in his staff given the way Scotland are set-up. Scotland manager of the future IMO.
-
Fletcher needs as much gametime as he can get before the qualifiers start. Neither can it be all fringe players given that the 'experiment' will be geared towards a starting XI in September and there won't be many more opportunities to do so.
-
You are a bad man
-
We are a football club owned by a PLC whose priority is to make money. Mr.Green with BPH and Margarita behind him played the 'it's in all our interests line that the club get back to the top' and we can see where that got us. We are now in another stage of a process. Same motivation but a slightly different Modus Operandi for another set of circumstances.
-
There are bigger things in play regarding the longterm future of the club.
-
Wallace: The 'Pied Piper', Corporate Speak and the Road to No-Where
buster. replied to buster.'s topic in Rangers Chat
An important issue is Trust and that goes for the board as a whole and major unidentified backers (since 2012). The current board continually give us good reason not to trust them, just like the incarnations of executive control that went before them. To describe what in another man's lexicon may be considered 'reasonable vigilance given recent history and those still involved'................ ................... as "a segment of the fanbase that will continue to stir up stuff no matter what Wallace says or does" is disengenuous. Instead, why not tell us why you think we should trust him and the board. -
I don't think Strachan's way of setting-up has a place for Rhodes style. I reckon Naismith is the best fit and that he is now above S.Fletcher in the pecking order.
-
Forwards 74 caps and 7 goals. Not good enough although Naismith is starting to make the role his. We'll see what he can do over the qualifying campaign. ps. well done to Cammy Bell although he might prefer just to go on holiday.
-
Perhaps that is because you find it difficut to defend or/and make a positive case for the board. The almost continual 'unhappy' forum traffic that recent years up right up until today has generated is inevitable. If you want to begin on a road to try and revert 'forum traffic' to mostly football matters, I think we have to go to the root of the problem and get our hands dirty.
-
Wallace: The 'Pied Piper', Corporate Speak and the Road to No-Where
buster. replied to buster.'s topic in Rangers Chat
DerBerliner Posters can choose to debate the OP or not. When you say "same arguments", I've yet to hear a convincing one in favour of GW, perhaps you could provide one. When you talk about coming back after X months to see if concerns were valid, I'd reply that maybe for once it is time to act upon those concerns and I'd point to the majority of the support presently either having decided to act or considering their position. We have the scars from previous inaction and a further cost is the current crossroads that provides options with varying degrees and timescales of pain. -
That response illustrates perfectly where the weight in this particular argument lys. How do you think contract negotiations went and led to said non-specific 100% bonus ?