bossy 0 Posted November 19, 2013 Share Posted November 19, 2013 For years we didn't ask the hard questions of David Murray and didn't put pressure on him and look where it got us. If the guys running the club are upfront then they should have no problem providing the evidence to refute the allegations once and for all. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEARGER 1,830 Posted November 19, 2013 Author Share Posted November 19, 2013 Here is the problem - polarised and entrenched views. Is it now criticism to ask for evidence to support serious allegations ? Hard not to have entrenched views with the way our club is being run at present. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEARGER 1,830 Posted November 19, 2013 Author Share Posted November 19, 2013 Also a board of directors who spent 25% of the IPO money on expenses. Figure should have been around 5%-10% approx. according to Jim McColl. And yes I will take McColl's word for it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Artagnan 173 Posted November 19, 2013 Share Posted November 19, 2013 For years we didn't ask the hard questions of David Murray and didn't put pressure on him and look where it got us. If the guys running the club are upfront then they should have no problem providing the evidence to refute the allegations once and for all. Where is the evidence to support the allegation re sale & lease back - has anyone seen it yet ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Artagnan 173 Posted November 19, 2013 Share Posted November 19, 2013 Hard not to have entrenched views with the way our club is being run at present. Sorry Bearger but is that not going a bit off topic ? We are discussing the allegations of sale & lease back and asking to see the grounds for such allegations. Thats not being critical of SOS nor supporting the current board - just a desire to see what has given rise to some very serious allegations. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
crucible 0 Posted November 19, 2013 Share Posted November 19, 2013 Also a board of directors who spent 25% of the IPO money on expenses. Figure should have been around 5%-10% approx. according to Jim McColl. And yes I will take McColl's word for it. You would have to factor in IPO and ancillary IPO monies, nowhere near 25% was used for expenses it was nearer 11%. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEARGER 1,830 Posted November 19, 2013 Author Share Posted November 19, 2013 You would have to factor in IPO and ancillary IPO monies, nowhere near 25% was used for expenses it was nearer 11%. Quote from Jim McColl live on SSN with Jim White 31/10/13. Don't remember toxic Jack or anyone else at the club denying it. "But I am still committed to bringing about this change. It was appalling what was going on. A lot of money was raised in the IPO, £22m. The expenses against that were 25% but we have done two IPOs and 5% is a more reasonable figure." 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranger_syntax 4,422 Posted November 19, 2013 Share Posted November 19, 2013 SOS on SSN now. ... and what of it then? Snatched from FF ... Just been on SSN. SoS in London to get shareholder support to vote out current board at AGM. A brief interview with Craig from Sons of Struth who explained that he is in London to meet and speak with the institutional investors to urge them to vote against the current board at next months AGM and to present the concerns of all groups and supporters who are backing SoS. Craig said that the AGM is of critical importance to give us a fresh start and to get our finances in order, because of how the current board has failed and held us back recently. It is bad enough having elected leaders of small fan groups claiming to represent us making unfounded allegations about our club, but now we have an unelected nobody doing the same. Very dissapointed with Sky for giving him the time of day. Do we really? It seems quite clear to me who he is representing. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Artagnan 173 Posted November 19, 2013 Share Posted November 19, 2013 Do we really? It seems quite clear to me who he is representing. Then why not the fans groups leaders themselves who are democratically elected to represent the fans ? Surely that would make far more sense. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranger_syntax 4,422 Posted November 19, 2013 Share Posted November 19, 2013 For years we didn't ask the hard questions of David Murray and didn't put pressure on him and look where it got us. If the guys running the club are upfront then they should have no problem providing the evidence to refute the allegations once and for all. Where is the evidence to support the allegation re sale & lease back - has anyone seen it yet ? Recent owners have sold off assets. This is what these people do. In the absence of proof in either direction we should ask ourselves if we trust the current board not to do something similar. I don't trust the current board. 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.