Bluedell
-
Posts
17,908 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
100
Everything posted by Bluedell
-
I was thinking about the 2-3-5 formation the other day and was wondering how it worked in practice. When I was a boy (and I'm much younger than BH) 2-3-5 seemed to be the standard formation according to books and mags that I read around then. I'm sure I used it as my subutteo formation and it worked fine for that. So did the 3 play as central defenders or midfielders, or a mixture of both?
-
The Fulham one was a cracker but I can't make up my mind which is better - the individual brilliance of that one or the teamwork involved in Wilshere's at the w/e. I thought Wilshere's was a stick-on for goal of the season but now I'm not so sure.
-
Was James Easdale not on the board when they agreed to pay Green £600K after sacking him?
-
Have you revoked his membership?
-
But that will likely only happen if the current shareholders vote away their pre-emptive rights at the AGM. However if it went through, it would also allow, say, the Easdales to do something similar and for much lower amounts. -
I'm as interested in McColl's motives. Why would someone who apparently doesn't support us be doing this?
-
If I have the choice between King and the Easdales? If i have the choice between King and Stockbridge? If I have the choice between King and Green? If I have the choiuce between King and Mather? I'd choose King. As for the choice between McColl and King, I wouldn't automatically go for McColl because of King's tax issues. McColl ran away before and is that really the sort of guy we want owning our club (if we are being hyper-choosy)? I haven't a clue what McColl's plans are and why someone with no apparent connection with he club is so keen to own us.
-
The Easdales, as directors, have been party to all the statements issued by the club over the past weeks and therefore they are tarred with the criticism that has been made of the statements.
-
"The fraud charges against King were not pursued by the State and King accepted liability in respect of 41 lesser counts of contravening section 75 of the Income Tax Act. "
-
And end up being outvoted at board meetings? I doubt Easdale and Stockbridge are in a rush to do that.
-
Traynor did explain his job description a few months ago at a fans meeting, which covered communications and social media. He did go into it in a bit more detail but I can't remember whar he said. Other posters on here were also at the meeting and may be able to expand.
-
Tax evasion/avoidance is a very tricky business. Many of the rules are complex and open to interpretation. This was shown with the BTC where there was not a unanimous decision and HMRC disgree with the outcome and are appealing it. There are also situations where you end up paying tax that you believe is not due because it is cheaper or less risky to do so rather than fight it and run up huge porfessional fees or end up losing and get hit with a much higher charge. Paying tax does not always mean that the tax is 100% due. HMRC and presumably SARS act like cowboys at times and are out to maximise their income by whatever means. I also know of someone who ended up paying a 9 figure sum (sic) to another overseas tax authority just to get them off his back. I don't know enough about the specifics of Dave King case but the fact that he paid off SARS doesn't mean much in my book.
-
I reckon that they probably were Rangers fans but not to the extent of actually attending games on a regular basis.
-
I guess there's an argument that says their non-presence allowed the fans to concentrate on the team rather than the board. In practical terms, perhaps Stockbridge had family commitments (school holidays?) and the Easdales as alleged NEDs have many other business interests to look after.
-
No, but I'm fairly sure I've been at away games during the 90s and early 00s were there weren't any Rangers directors in the directors box. There were games that Ogilvie missed, for example and at the start of 2000 he was the most likely one to attend.
-
I'd probably agree with that. I guess I'm differentiating between criticising the club and the individual directors.
-
I understand Cameron told certain fans to stick their banners up their arses when they were complaining about Murray. How did that turn out, Andy?
-
He's not the only well kent fan from the Members who does that
-
He's had a couple throughout the years. Started as number two to the financial controller back in 1991 IIRC.
-
LOL. Fixed that for you.
-
Whyte I hasn't had a finger layed on him so I fail to see why the current directors should fell threatened. I also can't accept that the Easdales didn't attend today because they feel threatened.
-
I would reckon there's been plenty of games in the past when we haven't sent directors to games. There's plenty to pull the directors up about but this isn't one of them.
-
I'd argue hat there wasn't a better keeper in the world when Goram was at his peak and was therefore world class.
-
A reasonable thing to do, but something that you fail miserably to address in this statement. By issuing a statement that says nothing, all you are doing is increasing speculation. Iy would not be hard to issue a statement clarifying things. Why does a statement clarifying your family's involvement have to involve criticism? A positive statement highlighting your involvement and the way forward would not have to include tit for tat. In addition, why have many of the club's recent statements been of a tit for tat nature? Did the business plan involve a £14m loss? Has Stockbridge shared it with you, given he obviously didn't share it with the last Chairman of the club? When does the business plan involve getting further finance and will it also be frittered away by the directors in under 9 months?
-
The point about the interim appointment was just to highlight the gravy train mentality prevalent in the board. Mather confirmed that the board had subsequently gone through a selection process and decided he was the best candidate. If they had found someone better then presumably he would have got a £600K pay-off. As for the argument that he was also COO, we appear to have managed without a separate one since his permanent appointment. The whole thing stinks. Green was sacked for gross misconduct but still got a full pay-out so there is every reason to think that Mather would have got the same, no matter his offence. We don't know why he was sacked but this board have been proven to give each other cash rather than looking to save the company money.