forlanssister 3,114 Posted September 23, 2013 Share Posted September 23, 2013 I've no idea what i'd be demonstrating for. I quite believe you! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,625 Posted September 23, 2013 Share Posted September 23, 2013 I've no idea what i'd be demonstrating for. This highlights a major problem for SoS. They have highlighted the problems and what they are against but nobody has come up with feasible alternatives. For this to have more chance of succeeding, there needs to be a clear idea of what we are "for" and not just what we are "against". There needs to be someone with ideas to rally around. It seemed as if Blin etc may have been the answer at one point but events over the past week or so have lost them credibility. Someone needs to step up to the plate. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted September 23, 2013 Share Posted September 23, 2013 That's pretty much what I mean, I certainly don't think everything is rosy but I can't get on board with the idea of 'everyone on evil current board out, good guys in (whoever they are).' 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Artagnan 173 Posted September 23, 2013 Share Posted September 23, 2013 The board should have thought of that before allowing the £20m+ to flow out the door in under 9 months. It's easy to say that new revenue streams need o be generated but harder to come up with them for a clu that is in the third tier of Scottish football. if there were some mysterious new streams, would they not already be in place? Selling assets seems to be the most straightforward way of generating cash so the SoS claims don't seem unreasonable. It's far more likely than the Board coming up with new multi-llin revenue streams. I wonder what CM said. Could it be "say that you are happy or the share price will fall and you will lose a lot of cash"? I don't take any confidence in a shareholder expressing confidence. Most did that back in December and look what happened to their cash. The simple answer to that Bluedell is that he could have said nothing. But thats not really the issue at hand here. Im told there are good reasons for some of the concerns which have been raised - in that case its the responsibility of those who have voiced such concerns to communicate same clearly and succinctly so that there are no grey areas or ambiguity for the fans. Furthermore I do think McColl should have made it much clearer that the reason he is not buying into a takeover is because he is contractually prevented from doing so, not because he is reticent to "splash the cash". This is not clear for a large number of Bears. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,625 Posted September 24, 2013 Share Posted September 24, 2013 Furthermore I do think McColl should have made it much clearer that the reason he is not buying into a takeover is because he is contractually prevented from doing so' date=' not because he is reticent to "splash the cash". This is not clear for a large number of Bears.[/quote'] The concerns that SOS raise are independent of anything to do with the McColl group, as far as I'm concerned. However as for the information that you have stated, it is news to me. Can you give more details? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted September 24, 2013 Share Posted September 24, 2013 This highlights a major problem for SoS. They have highlighted the problems and what they are against but nobody has come up with feasible alternatives. For this to have more chance of succeeding, there needs to be a clear idea of what we are "for" and not just what we are "against". There needs to be someone with ideas to rally around. It seemed as if Blin etc may have been the answer at one point but events over the past week or so have lost them credibility. Someone needs to step up to the plate. We need to show them that if they sell our stadium then tens of thousands will be up in arms. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Artagnan 173 Posted September 24, 2013 Share Posted September 24, 2013 The concerns that SOS raise are independent of anything to do with the McColl group, as far as I'm concerned. However as for the information that you have stated, it is news to me. Can you give more details? It not really news to you BD - its those very same concerns from the likes of McColl & Walter for that matter, which gave rise to the initial power struggle - the competency and capability of this current board to deliver, and to ensure that their actions are motivated purely by doing whats best for Rangers and not some individual (s) The problems is that those seeking or suggesting there is a need for change have not communicated very clearly the reasons why - they have made very general, and fairly sensational statements about the financial state and future of the club without giving us the "meat off the bones". More detailed failings are required not just headline grabbing statements about financial armageddon. Take the 2 men I have cited for example, Walter & McColl - Walter resigns making a statement which endorses the current CEO and actually states he hopes he will remain in place should a takeover happen - a very confusing and contradictory statement . McColl on the hand is contractually tied until 2015 I think it is and therefore he is unable to facilitate the buy out of the current board even if he wants to. A quick look around many of the Rangers forums suggest he has failed to communicate that fact effectively. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted September 24, 2013 Share Posted September 24, 2013 we need change because the current board think it's ok to pay 100% bonuses for wining sfl3 because they pay 250k to whytes best pal for introducing them to mike ashley because they can spend 45 million in a year and claim not to know what on. because they can't raise a credit line so low is the confidence in them. because at least 24% of the shareholders want them gone. because they video other board members drunk and post it online. because one of them at least is feeding info to charlotte fakes because of utter turmoil on the board. because walter smith says we should. take your pick. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
54andcounting 0 Posted September 24, 2013 Share Posted September 24, 2013 The video one: That was a real embarrassment. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted September 24, 2013 Share Posted September 24, 2013 The video one: That was a real embarrassment. Stockbridge should have been hounded out the same day. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.