Jump to content

 

 

Bluedell

 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    17,908

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    100

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Bluedell

  1. Bluedell
    I think it was listed as a subsidiary in the half year accounts.
  2. Bluedell
    I agree that it's not a huge issue but it's not just players it affects. I know of one bear who has not renewed his season ticket after had homophobic comments aimed at him last season. There are other reasons for the non-renewal but I'm sure the comments didn't help.
  3. Bluedell
    The author seems a bit of a loony tune himself. Frankie, disagree with it being an Edinburgh stadium. Surely we could have 20k+ bears going to it and we would not want to restrict suporter numbers?
  4. Bluedell
    If it helps the homophobes reassess their attitudes then it's worthwhile, but I doubt anyone ine the crowd will be able to identify the colour of anyone's laces.
  5. Bluedell
    You have already posted that article Ian, so will lock this thread.
  6. Bluedell
    It is, but It's just a general point I'm making. It's not a specific criticism but just looking at it in an idealistic way.
  7. Bluedell
    On a separate point, it would be far better if they were investing that cash in the club rather than it going to third parties.
  8. Bluedell
    The way I see it is that their current shareholding in itself doesn't warrant one place on the board, never mind two. Better than them in what way? There's plenty better directors out there, I'm sure. However there's apparently nobody else willing to put their money where their mouth is and buy shares other than the Easdales, and I'm sure their shareholding will only continue to grow.
  9. Bluedell
    I have heard a lot about them for years but not through business circles. Just talk of the steamy....from people who know them well. there's no smoke without fire. Saying that, it's their general character I have the problem with. I think that that they may be more interested in the well-being of the club than many on the board.
  10. Bluedell
    :shakes head in disappointment and resignation: What makes you think that they don't already control much of what is going on in the club?
  11. Bluedell
    The constant requirement to call the directors spivs is off-putting. Starting off by criticising directors for not being Rangers fans isn't a great start either. I don't care if the directors are or aren't Rangers fans. Their ability as directors is far more important than what team they support. There's a lot to criticise the directors for and I think that the SoS need to focus on that rather than petty name calling. I agree with their aims but they need to be more professional and focused.
  12. Bluedell
    No, the club should not be making any comment. It cannot be in the position of commenting every time an alleged Rangers fan does something wrong because: - it has nothing to do with the club - it would be issuing statements every hour - there is no proof Rangers fans were involved - commenting could encourage non-Rangers fans to carry out similar incidents
  13. Bluedell
    Yes. The need for him to find a RC sounding name and then accuse them doesn't do us any favours and also takes some eyes off the ball. We should be concentrating on people that are actually doing us harm rather than making things up, like a tax partner is heading up audits.
  14. Bluedell
    Given the anti-Rangers source of the article, I would treat it with scepticism.
  15. Bluedell
    Great. Can you email a copy to me? Thanks
  16. Bluedell
    Maybe the ex-players don't think it that important a story. I don't recall Greig rushing to the Goalie's defence when he was being pilloried by the press. They may also not have any knowledge of Greig's input as a director. Crap point by Leggat.
  17. Bluedell
    ...which is?
  18. Bluedell
    McCollco obviously felt strongly enough about Stockbridge's performance in an executive director role that they called an EGM to have him removed. If they now are saying that they are happy for him to remain and continue to perform as he has done so and they just get paid off with seats on the board, and by doing so allow Sandy Easdale on the board, then it is not something that shows any of them in a great light.
  19. Bluedell
    Proves my point. Far more effective than saying "Please be quiet, you rather disagreeable people."
  20. Bluedell
    The requestition should be in whatever name they hold the shares. It's a basic premise that any first year lawyer would get right. I can't believe that they got something as basic as that wrong.
  21. Bluedell
    It's more akin to "fanny" than the c word. Nothing wrong with calling people a fanny, fud, etc on forums when it's warranted (which it was). Sometimes words like that can just sum up someone. Sometimes it can be more effective than just saying that "his behaviour has been disgraceful", and I'd rather be called a fud than Andy S's criticism that Thomson is more impartial.
  22. Bluedell
    So we can't call someone who admits to giving interviews to Scotzine a total fud? Sorry Frankie, but that's OTT. It's a football forum, not a Sunday school picnic. Are we not allowed to be abusive about Neil Lennon either?
  23. Bluedell
    I don't think that we are in the position that we can play less than half our best 11 against an SPL side and expect to win. It's harsh to call it a poor result.
  24. Bluedell
    Don't see why Ally won't play him. :rf::sf: :ib::lm: :ap: :jd:
  25. Bluedell
    Did anyone download a copy of it?
×
×
  • 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.