Jump to content

 

 

Bluedell

 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    17,909

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    100

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Bluedell

  1. Bluedell
    What happened 2 years ago on 14th Feb?
  2. Bluedell
    The difference between McColl and King is that King has invested cash in the past, and therefore has history of supporting the club financially.
  3. Bluedell
    They don't go and support their own team these days and I can't imagine too many will want to: 1. spend money that goes into our coffers, and 2. go to a game that should see us winning by a good few goals. I doubt that there will too many on Hetherstons's bus.
  4. Bluedell
    Should the board of Rangers really be issuing statements just because some bigoted, unbalanced blogger says something? Are we going to jump to it every time he comes out with some crap? We should be above that and should not pander to internet bigots and give them credibility that they don't deserve. Very disappointed that there was a statement issued.
  5. Bluedell
    Without covering old ground, there's an argument to say that part of the RST board had acted that way in the past which could have been raised when BuyRangers was launched (and at other times). If that had been raised at the time then the only losers would have been the club and it would have been done through spite and nothing else. It doesn't do anyone any good to revisit internal squabbles, and as Frankie says, there are two sides to every story. If we get into a he said she said argument, again the club are going to be the only losers. I think it may be helpful if there was a statement issued to explain the reasons for the split from the RST as this is obviously muddying the waters and while it will not appease everyone, it may allow the issue to be put to bed for many and allow the project to hopefully proceed.
  6. Bluedell
    You are correct. Changes in directorships need to be registered with Companies House within 14 days IIRC.
  7. Bluedell
    Decided to have a look and the date of appointment on Earley's new form is 9/5/12. My guess would be that someone submitted both Whyte and Earley's resignations from the company and they have just resubmitted their previous appointments. Unfortunately is was all done electronically and therefore it doesn;t say who authorised the original appointment.
  8. Bluedell
    I don't think that anyone's doubting what you are saying, and I also don't think that you should publish private RST correspondence. As for the legal position, this isn't the thread for me to vent my feelings on that (again).
  9. Bluedell
    The RST has always been more than just its core objective. That's why many joined it. There's no reason why it has to limit itself to that if it has the resources for it (it may not at the moment). There have been occasions that it has taken its eye off the ball of its core objective, particularly as the other stuff can be a lot more sexy, but that in itself, should not preclude it from getting involved elsewhere.
  10. Bluedell
    The Companies House website moves onto a prefix of wck2 when you click on the find information link. I'm not technical so don't know the implications of that but the screen shot is kosher.
  11. Bluedell
    They were at one point. Perhaps I've been unfair on SD and they did chuck them out.
  12. Bluedell
    You are misunderstanding the question. There has to be a director who authorises a director's appointment and I was asking who it was in the case of Earley. Who signed the form (if it was done off-line)? Was there an existing dirctor? I could check it out myself but don't have the time or inclination.
  13. Bluedell
    The company check website is an irrelevance. It is not totally accurate. The Companies House website is the definitive one. Director changes are submitted to Companies House. Company check will just take their information from the Companies House website.
  14. Bluedell
    I find it incredible that SD were threatening to ban RST over the WDYGH chant, but have allowed Jeanette Findlay and the Celtic Trust free reign with their continuous pro-terrorist agenda over many, many yeras. Personally I'd have told SD to do one.
  15. Bluedell
    So basically you agree with me that your previous definition was incorrect and the fact that it has a primary purpose, but that is therefore not it's sole purpose. With the greatest respect, you may have held these positions but your posts are contradictory. I'd also add that while you were on the board of the RST, the RST got involved in other issues. From memory this included the WDB campaign, campaigning against the use of the H word, commenting on ticket pricing, player bans etc.
  16. Bluedell
    So who was the director that appointed Aiden Earley on 3/2/14?
  17. Bluedell
    Firstly, I'd disagree with the definition that you gave for a number of reasons (no mention of ownership, relationship with the owners is not required) and secondly a Trust doesn't have to be a single issue entity. It wasn't when you were on the board and there's no reason why it can't have other subsidiary interests. Hey, am I being critical again?
  18. Bluedell
    The answer appears to be no, as you would find out if you look closely at his posts....
  19. Bluedell
    Agreed. However I'd fully expect those involved to have their names announced. If TWWC is one of these, he still deserves anonimity within a forum setting. However having looked at his posts again, it doesn't take too much detective work to find out TWWC's real name.
  20. Bluedell
    It's not fair to ask someone their identity.
  21. Bluedell
    I do know quite a few on this thread (perhaps even TWWC, but not quite sure who he is). Perhaps the people involved with this are slightly different (which seems to have put a nose or two out of joint). I'd say though that those who know each other don't have a problem with anyone although there can be disagreements as is the case with PLG and BH, but it's not personal IMO. Perhaps I'm missing the point that you were trying to make though.
  22. Bluedell
    Which posters are you referring to? The ones on this thread?
  23. Bluedell
    I wouldn't get too hung on it, it's probably a way of describing "guys whose email addys we have"
  24. Bluedell
    It's very disappointing to see the toys out the pram attitude that's been shown.
  25. Bluedell
    There are differences though. 1. Level of fear - Rangers fans generally never believed that their club would fold, and still don't. The same may not be true for fans of the other 2 clubs. 2. Experience of funding - Rangers fans have been through the experience of sugar daddies (SDM, ENIC, KIng etc) putting in cash and there is still an expectation that King (or another) will swoop in to save the day. 3. Experience of club spending - Rangers fans have seen previous cash that they have been put into the club being squandered very quickly (£22m in 9 months, SDM spending from 2000 onwards for example) and will be reluctant to dig deep again through fear of it happening again. 4. Experience of already giving - the club has asked for cash on many occasions (club deck, 3 share issues, other fund raising initiatives), not forgetting Gersave, RFFF and BuyRangers and and there's only so many times people will go back into their pockets. I therefore have concerns but I do hope that you are successful.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.