buster.
-
Posts
14,227 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
111
Everything posted by buster.
-
..................................
-
A way to go? Murrayfield naming rights £20million...
buster. replied to compo's topic in Rangers Chat
I think you have to consider that many companies may consider Rangers a brand that is currently to be avoided because of the ongoing soap opera (which includes financial risk, a contingent liability on Ibrox and the spectre of S&LB that doesn't seem to go away). -
I always found his mini-PR consultancy and the Super Abundance preaching a curious mix. Perhaps it's the SA preaching that enables him to write so easily about sums of pounds sterling, such as 50M (Blue Pitch) and 80M (McGills). Perhaps it's the SA that confused Mr.Somers about the fans protests in December, who knows ? ps. I did notice that in an attempt to counter-act the "Merlin' tag he has began to use it himself in a prominent fashion. What we need now is for Mediahouse to use 'Toxic' to preface Jack.
-
Wasn't a blog for a while and then two came along one after another so,...probably.
-
McMurdo ain't lost his marbles as such, he's just being used. His various ventures on the internet tell us much about him and his methods. Maybe I'm wrong and he has lost his marbles, or perhaps he sold them !!
-
The over-riding message is that as heavily suspected, the root of our problem (post administration) is still there.
-
Bill Jnr. is struggling.......... I think the numbers of supporters who believe him to be a reasonably objective blogger are few and getting ever fewer. Bill does PR consultancy on the side along with Super Abundance preaching, why doesn't he offer a 2 for 1 service to the Rangers board and solve all our problems ?
-
Haven't yet read it but as you know McMurdo is the mouthpiece for the Easdales and more to the point, the proxies behind Easdale. His blog can be a good indication of what is simmering as he is fed info/spin from the sp.ivs to relay to the wider support with a particular spin. edit. Just read it and yes the man in the middle (GW) must be moving away from the Easdale/Blue Pitch line. It may be because Wallace thinks it too toxic, having too many ties/links to the age of 'onerous contracts'.
-
A problem is a problem until you get to the root of the problem.
-
I think it pertinent to remember that it is the 'Union of Fans' who are involved in negotiations rather than individuals, who may speak on behalf of the group.
-
I'd agree in that I think some (me included) have almost forgotten about the football side of Rangers. In part because it is so poor and in part because they judge it to pale into insignificance in relative importance. Where I would say the two strands come together and tell a story is the continued lack of action from the various incarnations of the sp.iv boards to address footballing problems with solutions that may be viewed as beyond the short-term. This goes back to the provisional allocation of spend in the IPO prospectus (nothing for footballing infrastructure) to the present day with Graham Wallace on his 156th day in the job telling us that we need a scouting system as he appoints a spin-doctor. I'd also say that IMO, the business review and the continuation of Ally McCoist as manager don't reconcile. Hence there would be a decison to take for the board/ proposed DoF.
-
Whilst I think all will recognize your sentiments as pure, I don't think you appreciate the importance of the political at this point in time. Looking at it from your perspective perhaps you need to think of the future,...........the sons and grandchildren wrt having a team to support worthy of the name.
-
I think that Sandy Easdale has and is being put forward/marketed/spun as the medium-term custodian. At least this is the continual message that shines through from actions and propaganda. What is vital to bear in mind here is the continuation from the overtly and now indisputably toxic times at Ibrox to the latest incarnation of the board. This would suggest that at least some of the Easdale proxies want to stick around and perhaps even continue to benefit from 'onerous contracts' amongst other things.
-
I think his intention is unambiguous and what is more grey is the modus operandi. I would note that for the Whyte and the Green the general vigilance wasn't so great. This change is in part because of increased awareness of the need for such but it is also selective from the two sides of the argument. What we presently see and what is new,......is the 'middle ground' in large part declaring themselves as prioritising the general need of vigilance with their gaze fixed upon the boardroom.
-
Within the Hildy post that you quote was......"The penny is starting to drop in the broader Rangers community that the club is not in safe hands........" I'd like to think some of the shareholders aren't too greedy when namimg any prospective price.
-
You have the old sp.ivs fronted by the Easdales that include the mysterious Blue Pitch and Margarita. The Easdales came in as replacements for Charles Green, although Sandy may not have been able to get on the PLC board because of his conviction. Then you have the hedge fund, Laxey Partners who over a period of time increased their stake, leading up to the pre-AGM when Crighton was appointed to the board. Note that Kingsworth said Crighton wasn't there for Laxey but at the AGM Norman himself said that he was. The advertised proposed approach from Laxey pre-AGM was probably what got 'floating' institutional investors on board. It's normal for a board to have differing interests and opinions for the way forward but I don't think I'd like either of the above, or a combination. You need UoF to make as much hay as they can of the latest development. With approximately 12% of a stakeholding, it would be a positive step to have a supporter representative in the boardroom.
-
The crux of the matter is TRUST, or rather the lack of it. The endgoal is surely to have an executive board in control of the club that can be fully trusted and for there to be sufficient meaningful transparency and engagement towards achieving that aim. That may need changes on the board and an end to spinning contracts.
-
Not forgetting the transparent Mark Hately interview. You'd almost think the club weren't sure if they wanted the ST money and were deliberating over an insolvency event sooner rather than kicking the can down the road. Now you have them coming to the table in an apparent effort to get ST renewal money flowing. It's confusing ! Ever since the turn of the year there seems to have been two sides to the board regarding what to do next with GW in the middle. You have the hedge fund and then you have the Easdale proxies. Oh to be the fly on the wall at board meetings.
-
'Ostrichised' is the word I'd use. The club have 'Espanyolificado' itself in terms of on-field competitivity and we face the prospect of years in the shadow of Celtic.
-
That's why they are at the table. They would have been banking on a significant % of the middle ground renewing which for several reasons hasn't happened. These include, not happy with board,.. football (lack of),.. generally scunnered with it all. I'd point to the UoF co-ordinated effort as being pivotal in this. What is a little strange is that more efforts haven't made by the board/club to push ST renewals.
-
The most important aspect wrt the UoF and the ST/security matter wasn't the numbers of pledges 1872 Ltd recieved. It was that they articulated and put forward a message that resonated with much of the 'middle unpolitised group of fans', who simply decided to wait to see developments before/if renewing. To start influencing this 'middle-ground' would put the wind up the board. The board will in the future look to marginalise 'awkward fans groups' if possible. One method will be via the planned 'membership scheme.
-
An ongoing fluid situation. One important message is that the fans DO have leverage if we are prepared to use it. Another is that it comes but once a year, so probably best not to agree to any first proposals that come from the club. In this case, the UoF (great credit due thusfar) are rightly taking legal advice and considering the offer to consider.
-
Will any legally binding agreement that is being considered,........... retain it's status in the event of an insolvency event ? The board seem desperate for the ST money. It would kick the cashflow can down the road a little. It would keep onerous contracts (spi.vs & friends?) in money. Bottomline, you have to remember who you are dealing with and their motivations and MO. I hope the UoF lawyers are very good and adept at smelling out sp.iv tactics. Another thing is on the board you have two different groups of sp.ivs. Crighton/Laxey. Easdale/Proxies.......(historic & onerous contract connections ?)
-
I don't think you even have to be cynical. He's the front to them and their proxy votes. In this he took over from Green. This is quite an interesting document to that effect when you read between a line or two. http://es.scribd.com/doc/224050552/Blue-Pitch
-
Practically......... SE is the front for around 22% of the stakeholding plus his own. Crighton is there for Laxey. Each represent a different side of the sp.ivs whom aren't always in harmony.