Gerspride conference, Sat 14 nov

[Frankie 8,218]

I note your other post, so I'll revert to this one.

 

The Trust will alter Gersave and the cost will not be a problem. This is active WIP.

 

I don't know what you mean about the Dave King comment, sorry.

 

I'm not 100% sure where you are going with your unity question tbh. The fans' groups are obviously - and very clearly - united. I obviously can't speak for Mark or his website, so I don't know if he plans to arrange a website owners meeting.

 

On your related point, people should attend if they are interested in getting fan ownership moving. It's not about Mark Dingwall and whether he backed someone else's idea in the past vs. whether you should back an idea he's involved with now. Surely?

 

So, the alteration of GerSave appears to be the leading strategy for allowing fans to buy into an ownership model? That makes sense.

 

Apparently Dave King is out of the running to buy the club - that has been suggested by a few people now including Colin Glass. The RST had publicly backed this bid which I think was a bit of a strategic error which points to premature decisions being made. How can you guarantee such errors won't be made again?

 

With regard to MD, the point I was making wasn't to do with his website but specifically the RST. As you know, they refuse to get involved in projects out with FF so my concern is that some (although not me) will use this as a fairly valid reason not to get involved with RST led projects now. How do MD and the RST intend overcoming that given I've seen further inter forum squabbles and insults on FF this morning simply because of this small, but interesting debate?

 

I agree problems should be left in the past and I have attempted to do this unsuccessfully recently with MD and the Trust. What has changed on their side of the fence now?

[Frankie 8,218]

(Some) interesting contributions on this thread.

 

The RST has indeed "cleared its minds", if that's the right expression. What it is doing right now is asking everyone else to clear their's too because we are all going to be fully tested over the next few weeks and months. At the end of the day, the game has changed and its time for everybody in the Rangers Family to get together. Petty squabbles (and that's what they are) will simply create hot air, slow us all down and get us absolutely nowhere.

 

There are plenty of people - members and non-members of the Trust - who feel the same way. The Trust is simply the vehicle for change, and everybody is, and will be, invited to play their part.

 

I'm taking this a post at a time, so apologies if I miss something that is mentioned later in the thread that makes this reply moot.

 

From recent events, and from looking at other forums this morning, the RST have not cleared their minds as you suggest. I accept some criticism aimed at them is strong, possibly ill-informed and may not help the situation for all of us. That is frustrating.

 

However, I fail to see how reacting in the same ill-informed way along with petty insults about forums who are permitting such debate is leading from the front, offering olive branches or projecting unity. Such hot air will slow us down and such hot air isn't helping any of us.

 

That goes for everyone obviously.

[Frankie 8,218]

Shroomz

 

Are you saying that even if the people in the RST with colleagues in the Assembly and Association come up with an investment vehicle that is legally and financially watertight, that is backed and managed by associates with impeccible personal & professional credibility, that is designed to filter large amounts of supporters cash into the future of Rangers FC and free it from the threatening clutches of the bank .... you predict epic fail simply because the RST is involved?

 

 

If the first part of that statement is true then people would be daft to cut off their nose to spite their face.

 

However, that doesn't mean Zappa's comments are somehow unfair or invalid. The RST does have a perception problem when coupled with the overall fan apathy problem.

 

Add in the fact that us being top of the league (with Utd win), then fans simply won't believe a fans group when compared to what the club are saying. That is a huge problem and without the credible backing I've talked about earlier, even the best of schemes could fail.

 

One only needs look at the superb GerSave scheme for evidence of that.

 

With respect, ignore that at your peril ahead of investing thousands of pounds and man hours in altering that.

 

[Frankie 8,218]

The hypocrisy of some sites is breathtaking, my brother who posted as boydscores has been banned by Rangersmedia, apparently he understands the Rangers accounts only to well, he should for reasons that will become obvious at a date in the future. If you don't agree with the party line it appears that over at Rangersmedia, appears the little general plays the timm card and you are gone, how about that frankie.

 

I don't know why the guy was banned and I certainly didn't ban him. I do know GCL has been warned for making timposter allegations before and was again over the weekend. As were people on here for similar behaviour the other day.

 

[spanner 0]

MIH have to repay loans of over �£400m in the current year according to their 2008 accounts. Not supposition, but fact.

 

MIH do not have �£400m to repay these loans. Again fact.

 

I'd be interested to know how MIH have therefore not defaulted in loan repayments as you have stated.

 

The bank had withdrawn the credit facility, which was confirmed by Rangers chairman in a recent interview. Fact therefore and not supposition.

 

As Rangers did not have a credit facility the bank CAN say that they will not renew the facility unless they have a representative appointed to the Board. That again is fact, and your comment that a bank cannot impose a director is not looking at it from a realistic viewpoint.

 

I agree that I cannot say for sure that Muir is a bank appointee, but when Walter Smith comes out and says that the bank are running the club then it is more than mere supposition.

 

MIH as any other company can and do renegotiate loan terms or extend them, at least that is what I am told. You appear to be under the impression that the bank has withdrawn Rangers credir facility, is or are these the same banking arrangements that are in place until Dec 2010 and due for review in Dec of this year.

I was under the impression that WS was a football manager, what WS thinks or who he thinks is running the club is of no importance in the financial aspect, do you really imagine the bank is going to lie bare faced to the public by saying they are not running the club, they said they are not that is good enough for me and as I am led to believe the code of practice.

You keep stating things as fact without any evidence, if you have any evidence that anyone has defaulted on bank repayments let us see them. SDM appears to be playing a blinder her, looks to be panning out as I and others imagine he would expect.

[Frankie 8,218]

Boss,

 

Your position is 100% clear and it's obvious that, for your own reasons, you will put obstacles in the way of anything the RST is trying to do here. That is understood.

 

Tannochsidebear, as far as I know, is an organisationally-neutral, well-respected Rangers fan who happens to be a member of just about every organisation going and a friend of all. To ask him (or anybody) nearly 40 questions on a thread like this one and the one on RM is, with the greatest of respect, ridiculous.

 

It's close to pointless trying to have a conversation when it's framed in such a way. One suspects that even if you got nearly 40 satisfactory answers, you'd have another 80 questions within the hour. If he (or any other individual) tried to answer your questions it would be an impossible task which would almost inevitibly result in inaccuracies and lead to ridicule. If your questions are avoided it will make those avoiding them look stupid and leave them open to ridicule. So you win, and this particular conversation is probably over.

 

If your aim is to kill the debate and isolate it to places other than Gersnet and RM, this is definitely the way to go.

 

I've not been on RM yet today so not sure if you (or TB) replied there.

 

However, ignoring perfectly valid questions just because the intent may be seen by some as mischievous is rather disappointing. I've not heard about some of the stuff Boss mentions (despite the disingenuous attempts by Trust board members to lump as together elsewhere) so it may be his information is incorrect.

 

Ergo, I'd suggest answering his questions that are relevant to the RST is a better way of showing that as opposed to saying his opinion doesn't count for whatever reason.

 

I think I've said to you before that representing the Trust online is somewhat of a thankless task. Separating the honest concerns from the more obtuse isn't always easy and arguably shouldn't even be attempted as ignoring anyone is not the way to go. That is exactly why we have people arguing on here, on RM, on VB and on FF.

 

Far be from me to tell you how to suck eggs of course....

[spanner 0]

I don't know why the guy was banned and I certainly didn't ban him. I do know GCL has been warned for making timposter allegations before and was again over the weekend. As were people on here for similar behaviour the other day.

 

 

Thanks Frankie your reply is appreciated, my brothers mates in a certain hall in Muir street Larkhall had a good laugh about the timmy jibes, I think it may have been Al's posting existence of previous loan notes from Murray Sports that may have been to much for some, anyway thanks again Frankie.

[Bluedell 5,408]

MIH as any other company can and do renegotiate loan terms or extend them, at least that is what I am told. You appear to be under the impression that the bank has withdrawn Rangers credir facility, is or are these the same banking arrangements that are in place until Dec 2010 and due for review in Dec of this year.

I was under the impression that WS was a football manager, what WS thinks or who he thinks is running the club is of no importance in the financial aspect, do you really imagine the bank is going to lie bare faced to the public by saying they are not running the club, they said they are not that is good enough for me and as I am led to believe the code of practice.

You keep stating things as fact without any evidence, if you have any evidence that anyone has defaulted on bank repayments let us see them. SDM appears to be playing a blinder her, looks to be panning out as I and others imagine he would expect.

 

Yes, these are the same credit arrangements. They are in place now, but were not for a period of time. That is a fact. Do you with your great knowledge deny it?

 

Have you got evidence that he hasn't defaulted on loan repayments? Where did he get the �£400m from then?

 

Are you suggesting that wlter Smith doesn't know what is happening within the club? That's laughable. The bank can easily state that they are not running the club when they are influencing every major decision that's made. It's naive to think otherwise.

 

You are the one who has stated stuff without evidence. I have the MIH accounts, Walter's statement, the chairman's statement, the appointment of Muir to back me up. You have nothing other than kidding on you have inside knowledge.

[spanner 0]

Yes, these are the same credit arrangements. They are in place now, but were not for a period of time. That is a fact. Do you with your great knowledge deny it?

 

Have you got evidence that he hasn't defaulted on loan repayments? Where did he get the �£400m from then?

 

Are you suggesting that wlter Smith doesn't know what is happening within the club? That's laughable. The bank can easily state that they are not running the club when they are influencing every major decision that's made. It's naive to think otherwise.

 

You are the one who has stated stuff without evidence. I have the MIH accounts, Walter's statement, the chairman's statement, the appointment of Muir to back me up. You have nothing other than kidding on you have inside knowledge.

 

As I said publish your facts, I am not claiming to be any guru, you claim to have the relevant paper work so post it, otherwise we can file it under supposition.

[Union City Blue 0]

So, the alteration of GerSave appears to be the leading strategy for allowing fans to buy into an ownership model? That makes sense.

 

Apparently Dave King is out of the running to buy the club - that has been suggested by a few people now including Colin Glass. The RST had publicly backed this bid which I think was a bit of a strategic error which points to premature decisions being made. How can you guarantee such errors won't be made again?

 

With regard to MD, the point I was making wasn't to do with his website but specifically the RST. As you know, they refuse to get involved in projects out with FF so my concern is that some (although not me) will use this as a fairly valid reason not to get involved with RST led projects now. How do MD and the RST intend overcoming that given I've seen further inter forum squabbles and insults on FF this morning simply because of this small, but interesting debate?

 

I agree problems should be left in the past and I have attempted to do this unsuccessfully recently with MD and the Trust. What has changed on their side of the fence now?

 

Morning Frankie,

 

Sending public, warm signals to a potential overseas bidder (the only bidder) who has not yet appeared does no harm whatsoever - this was definitely not an error and has no negative consequences that I know of.

 

As you know, I have no truck with inter-forum squabbles and it saddens me when I see people indulging. However, I have to accept that it happens on FF and is indirectly aimed at RM and that it also happens on RM and is directed at FF. It also happens here and elsewhere, and is mainly directed at FF.

 

The number of participants is tiny and it is obvious to anyone that there is a barely-hidden undercurrent of emotion influencing what comes out of the keyboard. People can say what the hell they like on the internet because they are generally unaccountable. There is actually so much rubbish and ill-informed hearsay being written that it is not even possible to counter it most of the time. Even justified criticism gets lost in amongst unneccessary tripe. What can I say?

 

More broadly, I think what has changed is the position of Rangers FC. The club is at or close to a real and tangible tipping point and 17-point plans, STS and WDB are what they are. None of them have achieved anything of any note, yet good ideas remain within and can hopefully be resurrected in a more positive climate another day.

 

The bottom line is that what's changed is the position of Rangers FC and I think a lot of people have woken up to the genuine peril. That in itself dictates that people should consider moving into a new place. For some, the conditions may not yet be right or there is too much water under the bridge or a middle ground hasn't been found yet. That is depressing but I assume people will change positions if they are able and when they're ready to (or not).

 

Everybody dragging everyone else backwards when the clock is ticking will be counter-productive to Rangers FC IMHO. We are where we are. It may be of little consequence to some, but at least the unity between the RST, Assembly and Association is a start and hopefully we can build from there. We really need to.

 

I can't possibly get involved in justifying or necessarily explaining past decisions when I wasn't involved - they may have been right, they may have been wrong, they may have been neither or both. Again, what else can I say? Honestly mate, I'm not going back there and if it slows us all down I will be very upset indeed.