Bluedell
-
Posts
17,910 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
100
Everything posted by Bluedell
-
I'd say that NARSA and VB are polar opposites of the support and to suggest that there's a concerted campaign seems extremely far-fetched. Absolutely. It is far removed from the original reasons for the contributions. The fact that the it was even felt to be considered throws the committee's judgment into question. Although we all have feelings about it, the case is effectively a civil one that doesn't involve the club. I would have been happy to contribute to it personally but it has NOTHING to do with RFFF and as such the cash cannot be used for it.
-
You'll have to explain to me in what respect NARSA are being opportunistic. You can explain to me why I'm being opportunistic in my views as well.
-
"Failure to deliver accounts on time is a criminal offence." They can tell Companies House that the accounts will be late but it's still a criminal offence and there will still be a fine to pay. Whether they tell Companies House makes no difference either way. Given that RIFC accounts were submitted last year, it's very strange (and suspicious) that RFCL's accounts weren't also submitted around the same time. Given that most of RIFC's consolidated trading takes place in RFCL, the RFCL accounts must have been almost there, if not completed. The main conclusion I can make is that there's something in these accounts that the directors don't want us to see.
-
Given I don't have a clue who voted for what (and I'm guessing many others are in the same boat), that's a baseless accusation to make, and one you'd struggle to prove about NARSA either. Sometimes it's nothing to do with loyalties or allegiances but just what's right and what's wrong.
-
There has to be an element of trust when you are looking after cash. The fact that they are suggesting expenditure on something that arguably has nothing to do with the club erodes that trust. It's nothing to do with the fact a vote has gone against them but rather the nature of what they were voting on. If it had been on whether the cash should be spent on refurbishing the ground for example, there would be no call for resignations.
-
It's worrying that they can treat a criminal action so slightly and without a hint of apology.
-
I think that this proves how the RFFF committee got it totally wrong. No matter whether we support Craig Houston or not, the RFFF funds should not be used in this manner. As I've said before, I lost confidence in them following the cash being used to pay Dunfermline, and on further reflection I do feel their positions are now untenable.
-
Statement from NARSA regarding recent events involving the RFFF: "The RFFF voted today that in the event of litigation against Craig Houston, arising from content on the Sons Of Struth Facebook page, a proposal to provide financial support will be taken to a general meeting of fans." Below is the NARSA (North American Rangers Supporters Association) response to the above statement by the RFFF (Rangers Fans Fighting Fund) from Wednesday March 26, 2014. NARSA hereby demands that the seven members of the RFFF who voted in favor of the motion to support the above proposal resign their positions on the RFFF Committee by Friday, April 4th. NARSA feels these seven persons have failed in their duty to use the funds in the manner befitting the original purpose or in the best interests of Rangers FC and the RFFF. Should any of these seven individuals remain on the RFFF Committee by end of day Friday, April 4th, 2014, NARSA and its Member Clubs will demand the immediate return of all monies donated. In addition, we propose that, as NARSA raised and donated funds in excess of $80,000 USD, we have official representation on the RFFF Committee going forward. Our representative would be the sitting President of NARSA, by default.
-
Yes. However it can take a couple of days for them to be processed by Companies House so they may have been submitted but they are certainly still detailed as being overdue.
-
I doubt that the people dealing with it would know. It's not their area.
-
VisitScotland have agreed that this will be updated later today. Edit: 15.45 - I see the site is now updated. Thanks to VisitScotland for prompt action, whatever the reason for the original issue.
-
Does the trust exist and who appoints the trustees? Are the trustees going to be acceptable to all areas of the support? There are guys who I sit beside would be very much against security being held by those involved with the UoF, even though they are not pro-board themselves.
-
How would security work? Whose name appears on the form? It can't be just "Rangers fans" and I'm not sure that it should be any of the existing groups.
-
I should be able to get it dealt with. Leave it with me.
-
Sorry but that's not a particularly good argument. I don't have the detailed knowledge of the ins and outs of the deals but I can look at the overall figures and see a fall and criticise. If someone was able to give me the full facts then I'd hope that I could come up with suggestions. The board may be trying, in the same way as David Moyes is trying to put together a successful Man Utd team but it doesn't mean that they are doing as well as expected and it doesn't mean that they are not open to criticism. Actually you didn't try and come up with reasons as to why there was no increase. You just said it was not expected but gave no rationale behind that assumption. In terms of the commercial side of the club, the buck stops with the board and they need to be the ones that take the blame for a fall in income in a period following promotion.
-
My view wouldn't change. It's still not what the RFFF cash is for. Not sure where democracy comes into it.
-
The board are inherently responsible for commercial income etc. Surely you can accept that? You say that it was highly unlikely that the income would increase. Why? Why would a year's further trading not give the board more opportunity to increase income? Why should it not at least stay the same as it was in the previous year?
-
Easdale is a director of the club and has been heavily involved in the running of the club for a period before that so it's got everything to do with him. We got told that the prior year was chaotic and that it was the first year of trading under the new regime so things hadn't settled down. We moved up a tier so YES, I did expect the figures to increase, or certainly didn't expect them to fall. It seems that as long as the faces in the boardroom keep changing regularly you are happy not to blame anyone in the board for anything that happens.
-
The RFFF was set up to be used to pay the post admin running costs of the club and it was specifically said that it would not be used to pay pre-admin debts. One of the first things that the RFFF committee decided to do was pay a Dunfermline pre-admin debt, with the apparent aim of saying "get it up ye" to Dundee Utd, and hence ignored all the assurances made before the cash was submitted. I'm therefore not surprised that the RFFF committee are proposing another misuse of funds just because it suits certain people's agendas.
-
Wasn't Ally. -
In addition: Income from broadcasting down Income from Commercial down Other operating income down. Seriously wtf.
-
The First Annual Gersnet Dinner (The Bears Picnic)
Bluedell replied to BrahimHemdani's topic in Rangers Chat
Too much hassle, BH. I'll give it to you at Ibrox. -
The First Annual Gersnet Dinner (The Bears Picnic)
Bluedell replied to BrahimHemdani's topic in Rangers Chat
I'm happy to stick £20 into the pot to go towards drinks whether I make it or not. -
In theory, yes, but it become difficult as RIFC is a quoted company and would probably need an EGM to sell its shares. If it approved it, the shareholders would be left holding shares in a company that had no trade and just had cash (on the assumption that the inter-company balance was cleared).
-
They would need to do it through RIFC. RFC is wholly owned by RIFC and has no third party shareholders.