buster.
-
Posts
13,902 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
103
Everything posted by buster.
-
Al Lamont just happened to be in place that morning with camera to doorstep an unusually forthcoming and willing interviewee in Mr.A.Easdale. His interview was both worrying and contradictory wityh what GW was to say. A.Easdale is director of TRFC, not RIFC. ps. Is Jack Irvine still working for the Easdales ?
-
Is Somers a lawyer to trade ? Perhaps he'll use the 'aparthied' defence !
-
Between the two we should get a fairly comprehensive lowdown. It'll be interesting to see what level of detail (actual numbers) the defence (Rangers) are required to show to justify their argument. If the club say there is loads of dosh and Ahmad doesn't have to worry, then they'll have to present the numbers. If the club say that freezing 500K would tip the club into a dark place where no-one wins, then it rather contradicts what they have recently been claiming.
-
That is the word on the street and I have no reason not to believe it. I talked about a secondary source because I thought it a sensible precaution rather than any certainty of ALamont omiting detail or slanting his report a certain way. When it comes to matters Rangers, it very much looks as if McLaughlin and Lamont have had the same 'Ibrox Insiders' and both reporters have shown a willingness to go that 'extra mile' in exchange for ongoing info (which has proved to be part spin). Today is different in that 'news' should be coming from a primary source.
-
What do they say about modern preachers, interests, money and spin ? Perhaps Mr.D has been attending sermons !!
-
For when it begins, although I'd recomend finding a secondary source to check full details have been reported in a reasonably even-handed manner. Chris McLaughlin @BBCchrismclaug 1 h .@BBCAlLamont in court today for Imran Ahmad v #Rangers. Follow him for all the latest.
-
Heard it all before and we know where it went. Fool me once,................................shame on you. Fool me twice,...............................shame on me. Fool me yet again........................?
-
We're at the World Cup ... well, Peralta is!
buster. replied to der Berliner's topic in Rangers Chat
Well Costa is now taken so Costly it is !! -
There is a limit to the detail provided in audited accounts. What you desribe given circumstances is blind loyalty to a dangerous degree. This comes with precedents that broadly say same people making same mistakes. I say that after pointing that out to many on several occasions (CW, CG etc) and up until this point always being proved correct. I appreciate there will be different opinions but in our case and after recent years and who are still in and around the board (including Easdale proxies), to back those who refuse to give meaningful transparency and engagement is frankly 'strange'.
-
As it stands I don't think many realise the state of play regarding the extent of cutbacks/new income required, to start breaking even.
-
So if I can't give you an audited account of where every penny went then everything is fine ? That level of BLIND loyalty is part of the reason why we find ourselves in the position we do today. Elsewhere on other forums I warned fans about CW, CG etc. but few wanted to listen at the time, many asked for foolproof evidence.
-
70M came and went I don't see the full benefits of that, do you ? At the end of the day, it's down to individuals, if you want to in part, fund the board & friends,.......................you are welcome to do so.
-
They'd better be quick although the amount of time spent on a hollow business review that just happened to come out doesn't bode well. In fact, perhaps it was actually a marketing campaign.
-
Examples of which there are many Mike Ashely and pals,............................... eg. Bishop Associates Bonus Culture "Onerous Contracts" The jist of it is that when these types (corporate sharks whose only goal is money) are involved they will find ways to take a disproportionate part of the pie. It's what they are good at and why they do what they do. I remember a certain Charles Green standing up and saying it's all about share value, that it's in their interests that the club does well so as to earn more money. Whilst that is true, it wasn't telling the full story or the real planned narrative. Many of the same backers of Green would appear to be backing A.Easdale.
-
Regarding the stand alone issue of ST's, it's very much an individual decision with supporters managing their own finances, it always has been. To help the supporter make his decision in the past, the club have conducted marketing campaigns, both promtional advertising and often a more subtle push using the press to communicate empty or misleading promises. We have reached a stage in our history where the sum total of actions by previous custodians has taken the club to another perlious place and I believe it important that the support think carefully about those in the boardroom, their motives and where they will or would lead us. About how they get to the 'promised land' with a well funded club whilst at the sametime satisfying their lust for money. I believe that if the current incumbents continue to be funded they will continue to run the club in a way in which sees the money 'shared' between their interests and the club. At the moment the supporter has an opportunity to use the only genuine leverage they have to hold the board to account and/or force change. We have reached a place where there is no easy path to take, there will be pain regardless. Personally I don't want to keep bending over and see the club fade further from where it was, continuing in part, to be a cash cow for other's interests. I think that there will be a relatively large group who share your opinion/plan of action. What I would say is don't let "moonbeams", "unsubstantiated corporate speak", an "interesting signing" or "emotive headlines" move you.........look for real and meaningful action regarding how the club is run, how it is to be financed and that the main assets won't be part of that etc. I think it telling that after 120+ days, the board still haven't really given us a meaningful and detailed vision and how they intend to get there.
-
Irony at it's finest !
-
Does he go by Imran Ahmad or IAMRANGERS in the court rolls ? ps. only a joke !
-
I appreciate what you say Frankie but some things need saying or asking. 'Serially bad advisors' of club politics need to have a light shone upon them. As you point out we are at a difficult crossroads. If you got bad advice from X on three different occasions, would you look for or value it on a 4th ? If you gave bad advice on three different occasions, would you be more circumspect to shout from the rooftops on a 4th ?............................I would think so unless there were 'interests' at the root of it.
-
Fools are people who fell for and promoted the grand slam of CW, the CG front, Mather Easdale & Stockbridge and now do the same the current board. The main and loud voices on RM fall into this category. Fool me once......................shame on you Fool me twice.....................shame on me Fool me repeatedly..........beyond help
-
That's rich coming from someone supporting the board.
-
The support have one main meaningful tool to use in an effort to influence the boardroom and it's ST's. Whether you call it a 'vote of confidence' or not is unimportant. The board prefers money to confidence and have proved to manage that money in a way that isn't in the best interests of the football club going forward. They act in their own interests and if it is allowed to continue our club will fade away regards levels of competivity. What we have is groups of supporters who are serial misjudgers of such situations trying to tell us the board should be supported. You couldn't make it up !!!
-
Are you saying that we should just continue bending over because it's been going on for years ?
-
Personally I don't think "hate" was the right word but the various incarnations of the board in recent years have treated the support with disdain and have abused the fans loyalty, including the current incumbents. As for the vast majority of those who back the current board, their track record in such judgement calls is around about the same percentage as the Graham Wallace bonus. With that in mind, it is difficult to understand why they aren't somewhat more circumspect in their pronouncements these days, but no !!
-
As I said, many others have more important matters in the forefront of their mind, than their seat.
-
I know a lot of people who have other priorities.