Bluedell
-
Posts
17,909 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
100
Everything posted by Bluedell
-
Surely RF wants to be opinionated? I'll play devil's advocate for a moment. Let's say RF get a percentage of the club and are invited to have a rep attend board meetings. Some things discussed may be commercially sensitive and cannot be revealed to fans. There are plenty of issues where there cannot be transparency. Just facts? Again a difficult thing to stay true to. Many issues are based on opinions eg is the Laxey interest rate reasonable? I think you're making a rod for your own back by some of this.
-
But what if a board isn't? What if people in RF believe that a board isn't necessarily working to the best interests of the club? For example, I'd claim that taking out a secured loan at 30% isn't. So if someone in RF found out what Whyte was up to you wouldn't have issued a statement on it? What is not controversial to one person may be to the next. I think that you are making claims that you can't possibly adhere to over a period of time, or else RF becomes toothless. Perhaps reign back the commitments of what you will and will not do in the future as surely that's up to the members to decide whether a controversial statement will be issued or not?
-
Not 100% sure. Perhaps what the guy in the thread means is that there is no requirement for Gersnet to register under the DPA, appoint a Data controller and pay the annual fee. However if Gersnet did start distributing email addresses then they may fall foul if it (or other legislation). However given it would take a court order for email addresses to be revealed (and even then many would be useless anyway), it hopefully isn't something for anyone to worry about.
-
A good thread here on the DPA: http://www.vbulletin.com/forum/forum/general/managing-your-community/364746-uk-law-the-data-protection-act-and-online-forums Perhaps the most relevant part is "As we do not require any personally identifiable data OTHER than users email addresses and dates of birth, and all posts and information provided is on a voluntary basis, we are not strictly subject to the DPA"
-
Seats DO matter. If lose my seat and don't sit besides my friends in my row and the 2 rows beside me then I don't renew.
-
The board will make a statement. The board composition will change slightly. The new board then say that it was the old board that made that statement and the new one will have to investigate further. I am deeply concerned that King is placing reliance on board statements. Did he learn nothing from the fact that statements by Whyte and Green were also PLC announcements and were ultimately meaningless?
-
Sounds like it but again seems strange. Why is the 120 days now relevant when it wasn't prior to the talks and prior to the card display at the w/e? I hope that the directors realise that they don't have to wait until the end of the 120 days before they implement stuff. They can do it at any point. The lack of apparent progress suggests that they aren't getting on too well.
-
I really like the stills story. As for their lawyers, based on FF it looks like people are just going to refer to his factual true previous conviction instead of the S word, so not sure what they can do about that.
-
Surely he didn't expect anything different? So what is plan B or how is he going to make plan A work without the board's cooperation? That is what he should be coming out with now,
-
I hope Dave King knows he's not allowed to use the S word when talking about a certain director.....
-
People can only go with the information that they have. On one hand you have a board who take out secured loans at 30%, which also contains the Easdales who threaten fans, not to mention their continued off-field activities, and on the other you have someone who previously invested £20 million. King undoubtedly still has a lot of questions to answer, and while you are correct to say that it's not just as simple as that, you can't blame fans or siding with King.
-
Didn't notice anything. What happened?
-
You can see me clearly holding up my blue card in one of the shots of the directors box
-
Majority or minority? Who can say as it was difficult to tell because the cards were the same colour as the seats. I met folk who didn't have a card, some who don't think much of the current board who had a card and didn't hold it up and some who held up the card but have no intention of taking part in King's trust scheme. Don't think it proves a lot other than to say there is widespread dissatisfaction with the board.
-
Zappa and PLG? Same place? A budding Gersnet romance!
-
The Meeting Between S Easdale and SOS at Full Time
Bluedell replied to chilledbear's topic in Rangers Chat
What phone book do you look in? Glasgow South, Glasgow North? Inverclyde? Edinburgh? How would anyone know his mum's address. The phone book doesn't say Craig's mum. Yes. However in this case it seems highly unlikely he could have got the address from any other source. It is forbidden for him to get information from the club/company and for him to use it in a personal way. He could have written to him as a company director but not in a personal sense. You obviously don't get the Data Protection Act so just accept that Easdale's actions were illegal if he did what was alleged. -
I doubt it's of any relevance.
-
It becomes a moot point. I am not going to renew my ticket for another seat, so there wouldn't be any cash to give to the trust if I am not going to get my current seat. All that it achieves is losing the club a season ticket.
-
The Meeting Between S Easdale and SOS at Full Time
Bluedell replied to chilledbear's topic in Rangers Chat
And what the f*** has Green got to do with this thread? Please keep it relevant guys. -
The Meeting Between S Easdale and SOS at Full Time
Bluedell replied to chilledbear's topic in Rangers Chat
It's far better to try and sort out these matters face to face and it's to Craig Houston's credit that he did so. It's far better to do particularly in an informal manner that than getting lawyers involved and to stop it escalating. There is absolutely nothing wrong in requesting to speak to directors in this manner. I have done so in the past. -
It's a double edged sword. While I agree that there should be safeguards to ensure that Ibrox isn't sold, to remove it from the company means that bank finance may not be possible in the future, and you are also removing the biggest asset from the club and therefore share issues may also not be possible if it stuffs up the balance sheet.
-
Still no explanation of why the club won't sell the seat that I've had for many years to someone else if I put my season ticket cash into the trust. What does that mean?
-
is that not King's plan as well? Give them the cash but just not all in one go?
-
The problem is that not holding up a card will make it appear I am supporting the current board. Not too happy about this whole thing.
-
I'd prefer King gave out more details of his plans before the fans are asked to publicly show their support.