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
    Agreed, and if you have to google it to find that there are a couple of people, who may or may not be Rangers fans, and nobody who goes to Ibrox is aware of it by any other means then it's not worthy of mention.
  2. Bluedell
    I doubt that any such group is club initiated or is designed to destroy the RST. Sounds like there's a propoganda machine started already. Edit - although perhaps we are talking about different things....
  3. Bluedell
    Very tempting but I think I will pass
  4. Bluedell
    Thanks, C, got it now. I see you've got your old job back...
  5. Bluedell
    McMurdo is a LIAR
  6. Bluedell
    There's a menu system on the website but none of them appear to lead to a link that shows the board members, and you seem to be saying that we have to go into a search function to find it. That raises a number of issues: 1. That suggests that you are trying to hide it from the members, which doesn't install any trust. 2. Is there a search function? I can't see one. 3. Why have the members not been emailed about all the recent changes, both additions and departures? The RST (and specifically yourself) did say that communication was to be improved, and while that is true to an extent, attempting to withhold board member changes from members is not in the spirit of good communication.
  7. Bluedell
    Celtic did nothing about it at the time and it only became an issue after the GB followed it up with another banner in the next game. Celtic have consistently allowed the GB to display banners with IRA references on them. They issued no statement about it between the end of that game and the start of the CL game. the banners must have been approved to get into the ground as they need to have their fire safety certificate checked. Another shameful cover-up by the SPFL as they take no action against a club who have consistently flouted the law by allowing these banners in over a number of years.
  8. Bluedell
    I'm afraid it does, Andy. There is a proportion of the support who think RST=MD=FF and therefore they won't touch it. This isn't the VB/RM guys I'm referring to, or the ex-board members that Hildy refers to but non-forum bears who I talk to at games, who don't get involved with all the forum politics crap. It's an image that has been long standing and will not change overnight. Perhaps you haven't heard it because it doesn't come up in conversation and it's not high on your radar but I've talked to quite a few about it and stood outside Ibrox handing out leaflets and it definitely exists.
  9. Bluedell
    I'd say that there is co-operation between TBO and UB, as far as I can see. They have co-existed in the same section for a while now and I don't see anything wrong in TBO wanting a bit more independence. They appear to still have a good relationship with the UBs (who can be very focused (for lack of a better word)) and I don't see a problem with the 2 groups co-existing and having their own aims and ways of doing things as long as they continue to co-operate and discuss things.
  10. Bluedell
    Not me, mate. I've done my fair share of work for fan ownership in the past, but not now. I was just putting forward a hypothetical. However, one thing that does need to be taken into account is a dose of realism. It may be fine for you and me to say that we should not have any schemes to go against the RST one, but that's in an ideal world. We have seen the extent of the anti-RST feeling on this forum and others. That doesn't just exist in forums but there are many fans that I speak to at games who I have tried to encourage to invest in the past who won't because it's the RST. That's not going to change in the short or medium term. That's a fact. It's perhaps unfair on the RST, but that's the reality and for any scheme to be vastly successful needs it to have independence from the RST to get wide-spread support.
  11. Bluedell
    Perhaps. for example, because a new scheme offers supporters more safeguards in respect of the assets of the club? The RST scheme has many pluses but it doesn't mean that it can't be improved upon, and who knows, perhaps the RST may look upon another scheme as being more beneficial and put its weight behind it?
  12. Bluedell
    I think it would be extremely difficult if we went to fan ownership overnight, but if we took a number of steps aong the way, starting with fan representation then it may have a chance.
  13. Bluedell
    TBO have looked very subdued all season. Hopefully this will allow them to develop again but I fear that they may end up just following UBs, who seem a lot more organised when it comes to the singing.
  14. Bluedell
    You have failed to give all the facts as well. The RST as an organisation prevented the incident from being discussed at the proper time at its AGM, resulting in the membership not knowing the facts, and the RST accounts not giving the required disclosure. Have some people given the issue too much prominence? Yes, but some have also not given it enough importance. We saw the attempted discrediting of more ex-board members yesterday, which isn't good to see, and is not in the club's best interests.
  15. Bluedell
    I'm sure that there will others with that view, but on the other hand there may be some who are attracted to it because it's not RST. It's probably best though to wait for the details and then a proper assessment can be made on the pros and cons.
  16. Bluedell
    The RST has only had a relative amount of success. If this new scheme does not have the RST baggage, it may have more chance of success. Unfortunately, I just think that there is not the appetite for it at this stage. It's a shame that Mark Dingwall is taking that attitude towards this new scheme. It comes across as jealousy and "it's ma ball" attitude. Surely anyone who wants supporter ownership/representation then they should be behind any promising scheme? It doesn't have to be all about the RST and his attempts at bad mouthing them doesn't do him (or the RST, even though he's apparently not a board member) any credit.
  17. Bluedell
    BH, there was certainly no harm in asking the questions, and it's worth following up on point 5, but it's no real surprise that they didn't give much information in their reply.
  18. Bluedell
    Having dealt with a number of these type of investment firms, they probably are not looking at it as a football club, but just an investment. They probably believe the fundimentals are potentially sound and the share price is vastly under-valued and are only interested in a share price rise, and may sell next week, or in 5 years, depending on market conditions. It could well be in one of their very high risk funds. In respect of the questions, 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 are probably confidential, as would 3 be if the answer as yes. Why would they disclose that information publicly? At a guess, I'd say that they haven't considered 11-14. I can't see any reason why they would commit to 10. Question 5 is probably the one that I would expect them to answeras that's the sort of information that they would routinely disclose. I don't feel that they are being dismissive. they just aren't looking at it in the same way as we do. I'm surprised that the likes of Laxey appear so hands-on, and I wouldn't be surprised if this crowd are not like that and are just adopting a normal investment company approach.
  19. Bluedell
    My understanding was that the insider said that he got £200K but that may not have been a year's pay, and could have been 6 month's notice and part of a contractual bonus, for example. It's also possible that his contract was changed post-IPA and he was entitled to a year's salary. There's different aspects of his position. There's his job in respect of preparing budgets, accounts etc, and it could be that this was done to an adequate level. Perhaps the budgets were correct when they were prepared and then the rest of the directors changed things without his agreement. It may be difficult to show that he was poor enough to dismiss him. THere's also the director aspect of his job and that tends to be more subjective. Also did the club go through the full disciplinary procedure? Was he given a verbal wwarning and two or three written warnings that he was not performing adequately? Was he given an opportunity to address his short-comings? He may well have had a great case to take to a tribunal.
  20. Bluedell
    It's not been confirmed that he got a "year's pay". Also it is possible to get more than your notice period from a tribunal. A wrongful dismissal can lead to much higher payments.
  21. Bluedell
    That article seemed to be written in Leggat's style, although I've seen other ones on there that aren't.
  22. Bluedell
    THere are a few ways that he could have been paid the amount claimed and neither the IPO nor the statement of him leaving were incorrect.
  23. Bluedell
    Presumably it's Leggat that's writing that blog?
  24. Bluedell
    A short term decision based on a short term cash requirement. As has been said already, he's worth around £3m+ and to sell him for less is criminal and short-sighted.
  25. Bluedell
    Doubt it's a wind-up, but not sure how their site works.
×
×
  • 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.