Jump to content

 

 

buster.

 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    14,371

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    111

 Content Type 

Everything posted by buster.

  1. buster.
    It's how spi.vs like the support to be. They are probably pleasantly surprised at how easy it has been.
  2. buster.
    Strategically, I don't think it is either Wallace or Easdale. Wallace has little meaningful independence and Easdale will be getting instructions from those within his voting block. There seems to be two main power blocks regards strategy, Easdale&Co and Laxey with the former probably holding sway.
  3. buster.
    First, it will probably be a share issue announced at the sametime as ST shortfall. Second, they could use that money to finance running costs (won't last that long/months) or in good part finance pay-offs, scrapping of contracts to get the costbase down. Easdale voting block, friends and associates would want any (onerous) contracts they have an interest in to continue or to be settled favourably. If contracts continue Easdale&Co would be interested in Rangers staying solvent to keep milking the club. If they don't the assets will go sooner rather than later.
  4. buster.
    Is it a cunning plan ? The one where everyone expects something different after the business review and they do the same as always ? or
  5. buster.
    Is it surprising where we are today ? We have a multi-layered spinfest to protect their multi-layered gravytrain. Omnishambles that needs torn up from the boardroom to Auchenhowie.
  6. buster.
    Wallace rolls out mostly empty corporatespeak that from day one has often been misleading and had scant relation to our actual situation. He is the semi-public voice that seeks to keep the heat off the board and buy time. "Semi" because he doesn't often do direct questioning and prefers to hide behind controllable press articles, twitter O&G's and the 'Paxmanlike' Rangers TV ! The other day he was talking about Ally and him planning, building and blending the squad with an eye towards the top tier. He didn't mention the 'Chief of Football Operations' (DoF) of the business review who perhaps will be appointed once the planning, scouting, building and blending is done. At the same time he talked of bringing in players which means spending money. So if there is money why not start with the scouting, DoF ? And if there is money why has George Letham not been paid ? Not forgetting this other line from the business review.......... "The Club acquired a number of players in Summer 2013 that, based on financial forecasts, it should have known that it could not afford" http://www.rangers.co.uk/images/staticcontent/documents/RangersBusinessReview.pdf I wonder what the current financial forecasts look like ?
  7. buster.
    Was GW playing Frankie's Bingo ?....... Seldom is so much said to say so little. Corporate speak with nothing of value.
  8. buster.
    It is also predictable and surprising that an in-house TV station will edit cotent in favour of those in charge. However, given our situation and the need for objectivity and meaningful transparency it is as you say "utterly sick" and I'd add disturbingly accurate (Pravda TV).
  9. buster.
    If there was trophies for Spin,.........Rangers would be bidding for their 4th consectutive Champions League next season. Misleading bullshit has become the usual fare coming from in and around the Ibrox boardroom. There is a generation who have known little else when you consider how SDM managed the situation.
  10. buster.
    That may or may not be the case but economics say we can't afford what would be considered as enough 'top class players' that would have a serious chance of winning the SPFL. We also have a manager who would need at least twice as much 'ability/talent' etc within the playing squad than a very good manager would.
  11. buster.
    The reporting of this topic may be used to push the siege mentality/confrontational line. If exploited, expect board members and/or club employees make further comment on the matter so as to push this and be seen as 'defenders' of the club.
  12. buster.
    Look at the players we had in 2011/12 and tell me how that went regards Cup competitions. Look at the cup record of the current management team. Look at the Celtic squad last season compared with the rest and I give you Morton and Aberdeen. Look at the business review and think about current finances. "The Club acquired a number of players in Summer 2013 that, based on financial forecasts, it should have known that it could not afford." http://www.rangers.co.uk/images/staticcontent/documents/RangersBusinessReview.pdf The reason you give doesn't stand-up when considering football issues or is it viable.
  13. buster.
    You knew where you stood with Pol Pot, allbeit extreme. He didn't need to mislead, lie or employ a spin-doctor.
  14. buster.
    - There are more than 8 players who have left Hibs. - If Hibs not only need to gel a new team together but still need to sign them and Hearts will more or less have a youth team should we really need to go out there and sign X amount of players ?
  15. buster.
    More often than not it is a lack of meaningful dialogue from the board that is the problem. Perhaps you meant to say "open it".
  16. buster.
    If he were there, I'd be surprised if he hadn't. Perhaps best to wait and hear from the man himself.
  17. buster.
    From the Business Review (April 2014) Strengthen the Club’s Football Operations - With the creation of the new position of Chief Football Operations Officer, with specific responsibility for developing best in class football operations support. This new role will support the Football Manager and the Board and will concentrate initially on developing player talent identification, scouting and recruitment capability Invest in Academy Players An Academy Development Fund will be created with dedicated annual investment, increasing over time, committed to the acquisition and development of high calibre young players (Charlie Telfer?) at different stages of their careers with the target to increase the number of Club trained talent coming through to play in the first team at an early stage. Develop Player Asset Management Developing playing talent is one of the major challenges at any football club. The Chief Football Operations Officer will also have the remit to develop the Club’s player asset strategy which will build a long term structure and plan to deliver playing talent for the Club and maximize value from player trading. http://www.rangers.co.uk/images/staticcontent/documents/RangersBusinessReview.pdf Did Miller get in ('before the lock') the appointment of a Chief Football Operations Officer ? Will it ever happen ?
  18. buster.
    They forgot the line. We are a team,... you pay your money and we'll make sure '10%' of it goes to the club.
  19. buster.
    The germ of it started a long time ago with SDM, David Grier and a floating charge.
  20. buster.
    There shall be no code of anything that denies free speech that isn't abusive. Abuse is already covered within moderation guidelines.
  21. buster.
    If a DoF is appointed before signings are made then you have to wonder if a 34 year old striker will be considered to take up one of the 'highest earner' spots. For the above you need money though and the board prioritizes 'spin'.
  22. buster.
    In case you missed Forlan's post' date=' here it is again. Any thought's ? This hit's on an important point regard's your point about............"But at what point does it not only deprive the board, but also our club and a manager wishing to strengthen a squad ?" The question being about........... who would be deprived of more income ? I certainly doubt it's what we would see as being 'the club'..............I note that you connect it to the old favourite of buying players. This goes to the heart of the issue regarding the 70M spend from which you can't see anywhere near the proportional benefit to 'the club'. Being 'accounted for' doesn't cover it, 'onerous contracts' begin to. With the same people who back Sandy Easdale with their proxy votes, being who were in at the divvy-up. The board is where our problems are,.... so why not focus efforts upon them instead of looking to subtly discredit and divide others. Unless you have a different constructive solution, in which case, it'd be interesting to hear it.
  23. buster.
    There are all sorts and many different motives but let's retain focus on where our problems ly. The executive board of RIFC, shadow director, mysterious proxy voting blocks and their at times dishonest and often misleading MO, leading Rangers towards eventual obscurity. These are the issues that the majority are concerned with, thank's in large part to efforts by the UoF in recent months. We need to focus on this and not look to subtly divide support for such efforts / pressure. If someone else has a solution then fine, but this is not the time to divide......
  24. buster.
    The minority are those who are indifferent/happy with the way the club is being run or are happy to go along with the current board aslong as they have their tummies rubbed and seek more to cause division amongst other supporters rather than honest, constructive and transparent focus on where the problem currently lys. The majority want to see action or committments from the current board regarding the longterm future of the club. The growth in numbers is reflected by ST numbers, which whilst there isn't an exact number.... they are signicantly down.
  25. buster.
    Do you believe the assets to be 'safe' ?
×
×
  • 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.