Bluedell
-
Posts
17,839 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
99
Everything posted by Bluedell
-
They both were sitting beside you.
-
I believe that 6 out of the 7 could not attend the SGM due to holidays or pre-arranged commitments and there were 2 at the 2008 AGM and one at the 2009 AGM, where, as you correctly say, no members took the opportunity to raise any questions.
-
Just to clarify that discipline was to be part of this commitee's remit. Edit: however I accept that the definition of "discipline" and what the phrase meant is open to interpretation. However this subject has been debated many times on various boards and I really don't see the point in rehashing it. I'd agree with plgsarmy that the whole thing is based on people's opinions and interpretation and therefore there can never be a definitive answer as to people's intentions. As I said on here last week, there were faults on both "sides". And thanks for posting, plgsarmy. Hopefully this won't be the last thread you contribute to on here.
-
I spoke too soon. It's now appeared on my laptop.
-
Do you REALLY have to sit down in your seat or is it just BS?
Bluedell replied to Zappa's topic in Rangers Chat
I think it's a health and safety issue. Did Manchester City Council not threaten to close part of OT because the Man Utd fans insisted on standing. I remember some members of TBO got banned (only temporarily) due to standing. You'll probably find that the club may feel they have to do it again if they have another inpection due. -
I'm sure it does
-
Soothsayer, what company do you work for? Why are you posting from a local council ip address?
-
I think that the comparison to Rangers teams/players in our recent history are more relevant. None of the NIAR commitment, and big time players. None of stars of Advocaat. Under McLeish we had Fergie at his height, de Boer, and even guys like Amo that for all his faults you get really get behind, and Lovenkrands who could sometimes offer a threat. The Wallace team of the mid 80s had Cooper. You look at the current team, and there's nothing in the midfield. Absolutely nothing. Boyd is a scorer but it's difficult for many to get behind him given his approach, and defensively we're no great shakes. A generation of fans have been able to hang their hats on something, but now there is nothing.
-
The only time I got that was when I logged in, which I usually never have to do as I don't log in as I've got the "remember me" box ticked.
-
Possibly. It's a work laptop so may have more stringent anti-porn, I mean anti pop-up settings than my other one.
-
AWBSAS, you're correct in what you say about the detail. Can I just clarify? My impression is that Duffy is part of a conosrtium that hasn't been made public yet. Are you referring to a different consortium, or the same one and just that Duffy has very little part in it? Do we have two parties interested in the club, or just the one?
-
I don't seem to have it appearing on my laptop, but it does appear on my desktop.
-
Questions do ned to be asked. However I don't see the need for him to give intimate details about his business affairs, particularly at this point. It's a scenario I work in, day-in, day out, so I am quite comfortable with it. edit: Perhaps because I am so familar with it, I'm more comfortable than most, and that doesn't mean that detailed questions shouldn't be asked, but I guess I just see that it doesn't have to be a "bad" thing.
-
I don't see why the fact that his business is off-shore means he is not credible. It's just smart tax planning. It's standard for such things not to be disclosed when off-shore.
-
Totally agree.
-
If he did then he wouldnt be the person to get involved with the club. It's extremely minor stuff from his viewpoint, and to get wound up by one thread would be an indication that he couldn't handle the pressure....not that I'm suggesting Duffy has. I'm sure he laughed it off as an irrelevance. I'd also say that a few on the RST board have got too fixated with it. There's far more important things to worry about, and hopefully things can move on. The focus should be elsewhere.
-
Net assets are �£66.5m
-
There's not been too many people who have said that they don't trust Duffy. There is nothing wrong is raising concerns over publicly available information. Are you suggesting that the support should blindly accept whoever puts themselves forward? I'm sure any serious player has a lot more skeletons in their closet than a few late annual returns and I can't imagine Duffy losing too much sleep over it. It's actually an irrelevance in the overall scheme of things. It's fine to discuss it on messageboards but will not matter a jot when push comes to shove. There are far bigger issues involved than that and the serious questioning over the proposals and the related finance hasn't started yet. It's obviously vital for the club and we all want to make sure that whatever "deal" is put on the table is the best one possible for the club.
-
Thanks, Amo. It sounds as if what I posted the other day was correct, with much of his wealth being off-shore. Interesting to get some meat on the bones. I'll go through it in more detail when I get the chance, but a couple of things stick out. I don't really understand how a property company that's presumably been trading for under 10 years has a whole stack of property and no debt. I'm not saying it isn't possible, but just that I don't understand it (although no reason why I should - property isn't my area of expertise and if it was straightforward to do then everyone would be doing it). The issue about the dissolutions was never a big issue. I've dissolved a few companies myself over the years. However the passing the buck to the other directors for the failure to complete annual returns doesn't really answer the concerns. If he is a director of the company then he has a legal responsibility to ensure it is done. Perhaps it's not the biggest crime in the world and I fully accept that he wouldn't be bothered with such things, but he should be ensuring that his company secretary is up to doing their job or getting them replaced. Although not relevant to anything, but I know someone who is also looking to move into the hybrid roofing area. Could be that he's looking to do it as a franchise of Duffy's business.
-
I'm surprised that he was surprised to find that the club was at risk. The financial situation at the club was well documented. However it's good that some realism over fan numbers is there. That, to me, is the most promising bit of the article. Other than that I didn't learn a lot, but look forward to hearing the detailed proposals when they emerge.
-
I'm sure that the argument would be that different occasions require different approaches. Sometimes a dignified response gives the journalist too much respect that they don't deserve. I'm no PR man so can't comment about the differences, but I'm sure that would be the argument.
-
The bottom line is that there were faults on both "sides" of the split of the RST and anyone who knows all the details and doesn't accept that isn't being objective (at best). The on-going spat is similar. Yes, Boss should not have had his dig, but likewise there should not have been the undignified and unprofessional responses from at least 3 current board members, who need to remember that they are in positions of responsibility, particularly at the moment when the image of the RST is important. Further sniping isn't doing any good. I've certainly answered PMs and given unsolicited advice to more than one current board member and am happy to carry on doing so if anyone on the Trust board feels that my views would be helpful in any way. Hopefully going forward, people who are questioning the RST can do it in a constructive manner, and those on the board can realise that they have put themselves in a position to be shot at and that constructive criticism or questions does not mean that those putting forward these points are not also wanting what is best for the club, and that these points are not valid ones even if they are difficult to answer.
-
I don't believe anyone was forced to resign.
-
Other than the statements of people in the club. They are facts. You haven't been able to come up with any more facts than that either, so what does that say about your suspicions? Overblown importance? I'm a punter on a small messageboard. It doesn't get any less important than that.
-
Of course they haven't. It's not in their interest to do so. So you believe Murray and I believe Walter and the other person within the club who told me about the bank in May. Neither of us have any more evidence than the other (and I'm not basing anything on the utterances of Darryl King)....although I'd also argue that circumstantial evidence also backs up my belief. I guess it depends on you believe is the more truthful.