Bluedell
-
Posts
17,900 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
100
Everything posted by Bluedell
-
Sorry, I wasn't clear enough in what I was trying to say. If the club repeats its inaction and fails to take adequate precautions to prevent the mistreatment of fans then trouble could happen again. So McCoist should not have said anything as he did not have the knowledge on what he was talking about? Bain certainly seemed to know that there was inadequate arrangements more than 48 hours previously so McCoist should also have known that. Perhaps it's just hearsay, but I trust TannochsideBear and don't have any doubt that his version of events is 100% true.
-
Billionaire in plan to buy out Rangersâ�� �£30m debt
Bluedell replied to johnnyk's topic in Rangers Chat
I heard rumours about this in Ibrox on Saturday, but didn't take them too seriously. It is alleged that Murray Park and Edmiston House are sticking points on the deal if it's the same rumour. -
I'm certainly not siding with them. However the club and management have not helped the situation and to just ignore that fact will result in an increased chance of this happening again, and it's also wrong not to criticise management when they give misleading statements. Just because you criticise one party doesn't mean that you are absolving everyone else.
-
I don't believe McCoist should resign over it, and I don't think an apology would particularly help, but to continue to give the impression that the fans were not in any way provoked as he did is extremely misleading and could in itself lhelp in increasing the punishment of the club. Yes, we need the fans to behave, but we also need the club to follow up on arrangements made. It's just not good enough to make arrangements and on the day not to ensure that they are followed through and to just sit back and enjoy the corporate entertaining that your hosts are putting on while the support are getting beaten and gassed. McCoist made it clear he thought that the club was in no way to blame which is wrong.
-
Thanks for that insightful input to an important debate. :box:
-
The McCoist interview certainly annoyed me. He made absolutely no reference to the saftey of the support, and seemed not to care about the fact that a fan was being assaulted, while praising the great jobs that Kenny Scott and the Rangers security staff were doing. Well Ally, if they were doing such a great job there would be procedures in place to ensure that our support were being properly treated. The fact that they weren't resulted in the trouble, and Kenny Scott and the club as a whole have to take a large part of the blame for what happened last week. There are mindless idiots in our support, but abdicating responsibility over procedures to keep them under control has resulted in this problem, and the club themselves are as culpable as these idiots, and McCoist's simplistic views also damage the club.
-
It's what I've been predicting for over 6 months http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/vb/showpost.php?p=139608&postcount=9 together with a loss of �£12m (as he puts his head on the block)
-
Perhaps you got the R and the T round the wrong way. The editor doesn't like t a i g for some reason.
-
Correct. Should have made that clearer. �£20-�£30 plus �£5/month. Certainly affordable to most at that level.
-
I see the RST are talking about an annual membership fee of �£80-�£90.
-
Would he have been available to play for Rangers if Rangers had a game instead of Algeria? I doubt it very much, and he has really gone down in my estimation in recent weeks.
-
The ongoing financing of the club needs to be addressed before any of this is realistic. Yes, the fans can own the club and have to pay an annual membership but what happens when the novelty wears off in a few years. Many may prefer not to pay their annual membership if they don't care who is on the board. We all know that there is apathy shown by a large section of the support and we could see membership dwindling. Do we need these funds as part of the ongoing income of the club or is it just extra cash? Will we obtain or even want financing facilities? How will they be used? If we have a few supporters elected to the board for a limited time period as has been suggested then we could find that they wish to use it all up sio that the club can be successful under their watch, and not have to worry about the future as it will be someone else's problem. Does this scenario preclude having a majority of fans on the board as was suggested by Miniblue? What happens if the club fails to qualify for the CL for 3 years in a row? Do we cut our cloth accordingly and cut back the wage bill? Will we be in a position to "speculate to accumulate"? It may be possible to overcome these issues, but they need to be addressed to ensure that any fan ownership proposals are taken seriously by the support.
-
I'm really struggling to go as well due to my son's football times being changed.
-
I'm not sure that Saturday will tell us that much.
-
Sorry to be negative again but it says virtually nothing.
-
I think that the point you made on Dave King having little or no control earleir in the thread is a good one, but it raises a couple of questions: Did he realise his lack of control when he made his investment initially (and that the club would be subsequently brought back under the MIH umbrella), or did he think he would have a lot of input? Did Dave King care about control/having input, and if not, is that unusual for guys with that amount of cash? My understanding is that a lot of the people around the Members Lounge were great Murray supporters, and over the years we had Bill Thornton, Ian Russell, Satty Singh etc, making loans to the club for some involvement on the board as associate directors or directors of Rangers Development Fund. These guys were only willing to make loans and not actually contribute cash into it, and they appear to have expected some position, however token, in return. It seems to me that experience has shown us that the big hitters would be expecting something major if they were making major contributions into the club, and would be expecting a directorship or similar. Perhaps we bring back the position of "associate" directors who have little influence but can have seats in the directors box etc, and this could fall under your privileges suggestion? However the major question is "would this be sufficient?" and I fear that it may not be.
-
There was never much infighting within the fans' groups themselves. The Association has had board members on the RST board for a number of years and there has never been any issues between them. Likewise the RST has been a member of the assembly since its inception, therefore largely giving it a lot of support and these 2 organsiations were always going to move closer together given the friendship of the 2 heads of them. The problems have been with websites, and that will continue to a certain extent, although input from the likes of yourself on here and RM will obviously be a great help in overcoming some of it. The RST has shown a great reluctance to move outside its relationship with FF, eg its negative approach to the STS report, and it needs to show that it will be happy to encompass the larger Rangers family over the long term to gain some of the trust that has been lost, and not just at the moment when things are tough.
-
Miniblue, firstly welcome to the site. Under your suggestion, you are saying that the fans would contribute a standard amount, and high net worth individuals could contribute more and get a seat on the board. However we as a club would not necessarily be maximising our income as there would be a large number of peiople inbetween who may be able to pay more, but nothing near the 6 or 7 figure sums that Smilies/Parks/Singhs etc of the world can. Can there be an additional incentive for higher funding while remaining within the OMOV model?
-
Got to admit that I find that article a little scary. The RST may have expertise in a number of areas but I don't believe finance or the legal side are their strengths at the moment. Perhaps they have brought in some skills, but I'd hope that they are not trying to plan the future of the club without it.
-
Latest article on the subject.
-
If Ngog hadn't dived over the tackle, he would have probably got brought down by it anyway. I don't think it's so clear cut that it's definitely not a penalty. Where does anticipation of a tackle end and diving begin? FWIW, I didn't think it was a penalty but I can see why the ref gave it.
-
Well thought-out posts, MF. Out of interest, in the quote above, do you see that return being in the form of dividends or just capital growth?
-
Wow. Impartial, objective journalism. He'd never last in Scotland, but good on the man.
-
Elish Angiolini doesn't seem too bothered about one half of the city.
-
In a place of learning as well, I understand.