Grantly Group ââ?¬â?? insolvencies, dissolutions and breaches of the Companies Acts

[rbr 1,256]

Morning all,

 

Firstly, I would like to repeat that the Trust is primarily concerned about two things; what is good for Rangers and the furtherment of widespread, meaningful supporter-ownership. In that order. It is not up to us to decide what is good for Rangers on behalf of anyone else though and we are not attempting to do that - but if we believe things are moving in the right direction generally, we are on-side. That is a pragmatic position to take IMHO.

 

The situation with Graham Duffy, as I see see it, is like this. He has stepped forward and - because we are talking about a consortium - I suspect he will simply be the first of several faces to do so as things develop. He is the only person to step forward up to this point though, hence the 'only show in town' comment.

 

I would also speculate that anyone in his position will be fully aware that probes into his background will occur, most prominently in an often-hostile and sensationalist media. I would be surprised if he had not foreseen this and I can only assume that this was regarded by him and his partners as something which would not be detrimental overall. They would be pretty stupid if they didn't see these things coming.

 

So I further assume that Duffy and his partners feel they will emerge with their credibility intact. How they achieve this I don't know - but if they fail then they will not get the support of the Trust (or Rangers fans, I imagine) going forward. If (if) Duffy can clear the questions up, then naturally I'd hope that no damage has been done as a result of inconclusive suggestions indirectly fed to the media by Rangers fans.

 

The chucking of stones between message-boards and mischief-making, I'm not getting into. As I've said consistently before, I find it tiresome, disappointing and totally counter-productive for Rangers.

 

 

Morning UCB , good post especially about the inter message board mischief making but I suppose we will have to live with it such is the world we live in , however with regards to Duffy why if he was or is part of a consortium would he break cover the way he did , I would have expected a fully briefed plan ready to be laid out to the fans instead of the I will be releasing details later quote, and especially since he was aware that the NOTW were about to do a story on him , so who's benefit did this serve us or him,I wonder

[Frankie 8,562]

Morning all,

 

Firstly, I would like to repeat that the Trust is primarily concerned about two things; what is good for Rangers and the furtherment of widespread, meaningful supporter-ownership. In that order. It is not up to us to decide what is good for Rangers on behalf of anyone else though and we are not attempting to do that - but if we believe things are moving in the right direction generally, we are on-side. That is a pragmatic position to take IMHO.

 

The situation with Graham Duffy, as I see see it, is like this. He has stepped forward and - because we are talking about a consortium - I suspect he will simply be the first of several faces to do so as things develop. He is the only person to step forward up to this point though, hence the 'only show in town' comment.

 

I would also speculate that anyone in his position will be fully aware that probes into his background will occur, most prominently in an often-hostile and sensationalist media. I would be surprised if he had not foreseen this and I can only assume that this was regarded by him and his partners as something which would not be detrimental overall. They would be pretty stupid if they didn't see these things coming.

 

So I further assume that Duffy and his partners feel they will emerge with their credibility intact. How they achieve this I don't know - but if they fail then they will not get the support of the Trust (or Rangers fans, I imagine) going forward. If (if) Duffy can clear the questions up, then naturally I'd hope that no damage has been done as a result of inconclusive suggestions indirectly fed to the media by Rangers fans.

 

The chucking of stones between message-boards and mischief-making, I'm not getting into. As I've said consistently before, I find it tiresome, disappointing and totally counter-productive for Rangers.

 

Thanks for taking the time to contribute mate - your input is much appreciated.

 

I don't think there is anything unreasonable with your position but I do think the Trust were wrong to back Duffy without knowing for sure the extra assumptions you make in your post. Add in the confusion about what the Trust have and have not said depending on what board member is posting where, then you'll understand why some fans are dubious about the whole situation.

 

Finally, your comments about inter-site squabbles are spot on. Unfortunately, this is coming as a direct result of your board colleagues being less than capable of your own eloquence (and patience). As such, while your are well within your rights not to comment (and we'll respect that here of course), their behaviour is only going to cause further problems if not addressed in the short-term. Quite frankly their reaction to valid concerns and questions is ludicrous and holding the Trust back if the intentions about unity and leadership are indeed genuine from all involved at board level.

[rbr 1,256]

OK, how about the bank taking over the club and performing the share issue, basically getting their 31M back in the process?

 

I suppose the risk of failure means that they could end up with ownership of a loss making company and really would be running the club along strict business lines.

 

So can't the bank and SDM get together to do something?

 

In the end I think the biggest problem is that I can't see the fans raising more than about 10-20M, and there would be nobody left to guarantee the loans - especially as the likes of the stadium is only valuable on paper as a home for a very large football club based in Govan...

 

This is a very good point and one I am surprised our media chums haven't picked up on , you cannot compare what would happen now with the last share issue , as back then everyone had lost face with SDM and that's one reason in my opinion why the shareholders myself included didn't touch it

[Frankie 8,562]

OK, how about the bank taking over the club and performing the share issue, basically getting their 31M back in the process?

 

I suppose the risk of failure means that they could end up with ownership of a loss making company and really would be running the club along strict business lines.

 

So can't the bank and SDM get together to do something?

 

In the end I think the biggest problem is that I can't see the fans raising more than about 10-20M, and there would be nobody left to guarantee the loans - especially as the likes of the stadium is only valuable on paper as a home for a very large football club based in Govan...

 

The bank doing such a thing is interesting but along with Murray, I'd imagine there will be legal/financial restrictions on what they can do in that regard. That's before we even get past the image problems of Murray - shown by the 2005 share issue.

 

Duffy or King or the RST or whoever need to ensure their public image is spotless before moving forward with such a scheme. I think the initial finance could be raised if the right people are involved, if the supporters get their say and if the model is flawless. However, your point about ongoing finance is arguably the biggest hurdle to all of this.

[boss 0]

Morning UCB and thanks for your input.

 

Just one small point of clarification. What do you mean by "inconclusive suggestions"? Would the phrase "publicly available facts" not be more appropriate?

[Bluedell 5,627]

Morning all,

 

Firstly, I would like to repeat that the Trust is primarily concerned about two things; what is good for Rangers and the furtherment of widespread, meaningful supporter-ownership. In that order. It is not up to us to decide what is good for Rangers on behalf of anyone else though and we are not attempting to do that - but if we believe things are moving in the right direction generally, we are on-side. That is a pragmatic position to take IMHO.

 

The situation with Graham Duffy, as I see see it, is like this. He has stepped forward and - because we are talking about a consortium - I suspect he will simply be the first of several faces to do so as things develop. He is the only person to step forward up to this point though, hence the 'only show in town' comment.

 

I would also speculate that anyone in his position will be fully aware that probes into his background will occur, most prominently in an often-hostile and sensationalist media. I would be surprised if he had not foreseen this and I can only assume that this was regarded by him and his partners as something which would not be detrimental overall. They would be pretty stupid if they didn't see these things coming.

 

So I further assume that Duffy and his partners feel they will emerge with their credibility intact. How they achieve this I don't know - but if they fail then they will not get the support of the Trust (or Rangers fans, I imagine) going forward. If (if) Duffy can clear the questions up, then naturally I'd hope that no damage has been done as a result of inconclusive suggestions indirectly fed to the media by Rangers fans.

 

The chucking of stones between message-boards and mischief-making, I'm not getting into. As I've said consistently before, I find it tiresome, disappointing and totally counter-productive for Rangers.

 

 

UCB, thanks for posting. Part of the issue on Duffy is that it is stupid things that he is getting criticised for. It takes 15 minutes to complete an annual return. He should have done all this tidy up prior to going public. It's straightforward and easy to do. Not doing it suggests that there is something to hide. Perhaps he's not interested in it because he's moved on, but that in itself doesn't come across as a great attitude.

[Bluedell 5,627]

If (if) Duffy can clear the questions up, then naturally I'd hope that no damage has been done as a result of inconclusive suggestions indirectly fed to the media by Rangers fans.

 

Out of interest, who are you suggesting indirectly fed Boss's article to the media? Surely they can pick it up themselves from the website?

[boss 0]

OK, how about the bank taking over the club and performing the share issue, basically getting their 31M back in the process?

 

I think the danger of this (or indeed the bank becoming too involved in general) is that it may fall foul of the Rules of the SPL, in particular the definition of "Insolvency Event" in section I1 part e., whereupon we would risk being deducted 10 points by virtue of section A6.8.

[Frankie 8,562]

Out of interest, who are you suggesting indirectly fed Boss's article to the media? Surely they can pick it up themselves from the website?

 

I think indirectly in this case means that they did simply pick it from the website.

 

Scottish Television has a chap registered on both here and RM so I assume he seen it, and got approval to publish it from his gaffer.

[Union City Blue 0]

Morning UCB , good post especially about the inter message board mischief making but I suppose we will have to live with it such is the world we live in , however with regards to Duffy why if he was or is part of a consortium would he break cover the way he did , I would have expected a fully briefed plan ready to be laid out to the fans instead of the I will be releasing details later quote, and especially since he was aware that the NOTW were about to do a story on him , so who's benefit did this serve us or him,I wonder

 

I really think we need to see how this plays out mate. One of the problems we have these days is the short-termist view on news. To borrow your phrase in another context, one day there's promising news and everyone gets a hard-on. The next day, there's some muck and everyone dives into depression. The truth is usually somewhere in the middle and only when everything's out there that people can objectively make up their own minds. It will be up to Graham Duffy to satisfy everyone of his credibility and suitability and as these people aren't stupid, I would be amazed if this wasn't factored in. The Trust will watch with interest and scrutinise along with everyone else.

 

In terms of media-management, the consortium guys have played a blinder so far IMHO, so let's see what happens before we reach conclusions about how or why certain things are done at certain times. Maybe odd mistakes will be made along the way - I don't know and I'm not suggesting this was one - but the media are the media experts and they usually hold all the cards so it's not necessarily easy. Things are obviously moving, so the picture will emerge and then everyone can decide what they think. I know it's frustrating at the moment, but this seems to be the way its unfolding so we'll all need to live with that I'm afraid.