buster.
-
Posts
14,164 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
110
Everything posted by buster.
-
Ask yourself why they won't genuinely engage. Engagement and Communication is fine if on their terms and you are prepared not to be what they might judge as 'awkward' or ask pertinent questions. Any initiatives from this board (including membership schemes) will look to control dialogue and marginalise 'troublesome' supporters groups.
-
I don't think it has been quite as simple as that. Unless individuals were willing to spend disproportionate levels of money just to get in the door/ hold real influence or control. Then you have to realise what you are taking on. The expectation levels allied to the available income streams and location (SPFL) mean that it is a difficult juggling act that can have millions thrown at it but still fail. All in all I agree with you that for various reasons we are going through what is a 'long-running before and after event'. The club is a shambles at all levels playing in a league without a sponser. A positive might be that you'd think it could only get better but I'm afraid that isn't necessarily the case. ps. I now realise who you are thank's to other forums on Gersnet.
-
This is what was said in court by the QC after taking instruction from Rangers the other day. Alasdair Lamont @BBCAlLamont 4 min Mr Summers QC says Rangers wish Union of Fans would "go away to allow the club to move on".
-
Don't you think that after you showed such patience in the past only for it to be 'abused' that more timely criticism/action may be in order this time ?
-
Solidarity is required. One man makes no difference. Thousands who stand together can make a difference and force change/influence events.
-
I think there is a mixture of the same old, eg. Easdale proxies........ with some new or increased (influence) old, eg.Laxey. Some of the old have sold-up and departed.
-
In the corporate guidebook on how to run a football club it states that it may take up to 120 days before a man with a good CV notices and acts on the lack of scouting. If the CV is only standard it goes up to 150 days.
-
Re. GW/shares. I can't recall any annoucements to that effect.
-
Spin department is far more important. Appointment of Paul Tyrell Priorities often explain MO. Besides GW only gets 315K basic and (very probable) 100% bonus,.... so you can't expect him to be able to engage and communicate effectively without layers of professional and expensive spin attached.
-
Perhaps only part of an 'electioneering campaign' for the AGM and Mr.Somers didn't really mean it. On a different note, did someone say that after 6 months Mr.Somers had suddenly decided to buy shares this week !!
-
Was that the FD that the chairman, Mr.Somers couldn't praise highly enough ?
-
Credit card facilities Sandy Easdale on the doorstep Going concern warning from 120 day review (timescale of review a sham and neatly brings us to ST renewal time) Contents of review feel more like 120 hours of work. Widespread and increasing unhappiness amongst fans (revenue stream) that the board do not meaningfully address but instead hire a PR consultant whilst talking about scouting and winning SPFL1 within 3 years. GW appointed and share price was just under 42p. Day that business review was published it was 21p. ie. if you bought at 21p you'd need a 100% increase in SP to get back to the November price. Maybe Graham got his 100%'s mixed up !! I could go on and on...............
-
And if you don't trust those with executive control on the subsequent allocation of resources ? Besides Rangers have said in court this week that whilst ST revenue is important that they have other ways of financing the shortfall and will be able to continue trading. This of course after a going concern warning re. ST monies and the Sandy Easdale doorstep interview . Confusing and contradictory messages.......
-
I referred more specifically to what may be termed an 'endgame' or similar involving the transfer or sale of assets.
-
I'd agree with that but I'd like to hear their pitch to institutional investors. There were apparently some interesting exchanges in the court case on Tuesday which I might touch on later. Do you think that the contingent liability may be getting in their way ?
-
David Somers buys 35,000 shares + Easdale buys more shares
buster. replied to Frankie's topic in Rangers Chat
Is this a 'delayed rebound' on shareprice ? At court on tuesday........... -
Or they could hope to implement austerity to the nth degree (apart from boardroom renumerations, any 100% bonus and spin dept.). The ongoing forseeable future ? Expect/hope for 40,000 to pay and watch a Stuart McCall type in charge of a provincial budget, in an 'ambitious effort' to finish second.
-
I don't know if by "proposed actions" you mean 1872 Ltd. but I was looking at it from the angle of the supporter who doesn't think he can trust those that have executive control or the main shareholders behind them. Then deciding not to pay his money up-front but rather make game-by-game decisions, based on criteria that he sees fit. A 'mind-set' that seems to be pushed is along the lines of "you'll make no difference". Alone he or she wouldn't make a substantial difference but add up thousands of like-minded individuals and they would have the potential to make a material impact. This brings me back to the longterm "Confuse & Divide" campaign that was sown and is nutured by those who want to best control the 'Blue Pound'. I would agree that there is a degree of arrogance in my previous post but it is borne of closely watching ongoing events in and around Ibrox in recent years, very much including how the spin-doctors have pushed to develop mind-sets within the support, confuse & divide and it's effects over time. Without blowing trumpets, it is relevant to say I called both CW and CG&Co out as they walked in the door.
-
Flexibility gives you power. If many (not restricted toTBO) are Flexible it gives the board food for thought before taking decisions, ie. a degree of accountability. My opinion, not an insult. The three categories are IMO a fair representation of many of our fans when it comes to boardroom matters at Ibrox in recent years. - I'd say that the 'complicit' are a very very small band and most of them will have a degree of naivity thrown-in. - The 'don't care' are those who simply want to watch the football and aren't interested in anything else. - The'naive' are a large group and it's understandable given complexities and heavy duty spin over years. They also include a fair amount of 'experts' whose previous experience didn't include a section on corporate vultures and their methods allied to a longterm spin campaign against the support to make 'control' easier. The positive is that this group is reducing in number as time goes by.
-
It's more about potentially cutting off a money supply that you have reasonable doubt will all be spent in the longterm interests of the club. (Potential) Protests that the board 'understand' will be unpaid empty seats..............hence a degree of ongoing accountibility. Throw it at them in one go and you are powerless and IMO after recent times, rather naive, complicit or don't care.
-
Ultimate responsibility lys in the boardroom, not with Ally McCoist. I agree that our football operation is a shambles and that those in positions of responsibility within should have been moved on a while ago (that includes AMcC and coaching team aswell as J.Sinclair). Those decisions haven't been taken and the wisdom of that lys at the door of the boardroom. Some who support the current board agree that McCoist et al have been found wanting. How do they square those points of view ?
-
Perhaps a lack of trust and the want of a tool that pushes ongoing accountability.
-
Up-front money to people you have no good reason to trust would be crazy. Besides the board (this week in court) have said they have other ways of funding the cashflow throughout the summer.
-
I doubt that anything that is not pertinent to the matter at hand will be publicly disclosed. The club will push this and claim other parts of said contract are not relevant, including commercially sensitive information that could financially damage the 'defender'.............or thereabouts.
-
Not necessarily. That case is more about the contract between Ahmad and the club/company.