Union City Blue

I dont see the players they are bringing in especially improving their squad to be honest , and the way they are touting wee aidsridden , it's pretty obvious they need to sell , even Hinkel has come out and talked about possibly having to move on .

 

I think their squad can only improve tbh, they were absolutely SHITE last season, really dire. I honestly don't think (based on everything i've seen of the wee runt) that wee aids is worth any more than �£2-3m, I honestly don't. It remains to be seen if all this �£8m stuff is agent/paper talk or not.

Brilliant idea, well done to the club and to the Assembly for helping to promote it.

Christ I find myself in agreement with wabash again , Nurse , but he's right I feel we are getting prepared for the big let down and the usual suspects being shoe horned into Murray park with half an hour of the transfer window to go yet again .

Has anybody seen anything to suggest the opposite?

Slagging Walter on this is unfair IMHO. He's telling us we are being priced out of the market for reasons which we're all familiar with by now. The fact that the guy signed a new deal after winning some concessions is to his credit but nobody ever said the concessions were going to be enough - especially if celtic start to properly improve their squad, which the seem to be trying to do.

Until we get a change of ownership and some new investment we'll be looking at Bosman's and cheapies. I don't think anything could be clearer.

Oh well, that's that then.

The viewers can decide.

But "you" did disclose the bank wanted their pound of flesh, allegedly, which as you know is of course bollox.

 

You will find that AJ covered the financial situation and the comical situation regarding the bid that never was, very well, your conclusion should be to try harder and spout less waffle, if you are an example of what proposes to give our fan base advice and guidance heaven help us. You could try and redeem yourself by reporting fact rather than fiction, you may still attain the blazer, must dash phone is ringing....:devil:

Crap answer. Avoids the points we are directly discussing.

FAIL.

I'm glad he's getting a go at a big club - I like him as a manager.

Like Curbishley and Redknapp, the only way to see is to be given the chance. I think he'll do well.

Fantastic!

1) AJ has never, ever, ever commented on the bank's requirements regarding a sale. You are talking about the wrong thing, which has nothing to do with what I'd said.

2) In any event, RFC has a substantial credit facility as well as a loan. It is this - as I (and others) have explained before - that is reviewed periodically and is what the bank has been trying to squeeze - not the long term loan, which everyone agrees is/was perfectly servicable. However, they wanted the O/S overdraft paid in full, and the loan too. They wanted cash and they wanted out. They called the shots. That is why they took a �£150m stake in Murray's business from him and why the sale price for RFC was so low.

3) There is no publicity downside for the bank effectively blocking a deal if this news is never disclosed or discussed in the media i.e. in this case. It was simply one of several reasons why Ellis never went ahead. He couldn't afford to take them out completely, pay Murray a reasonable amount and invest in the club. So it didn't work on either side.

My conclusion, I'm afraid, is that you don't really know what you're taking about (maybe your grandson's stopped taking your calls?) and consequently, you are talking .. well ... erm... BOLLOX!

Just to reiterate your statement regarding the bank was and is utter bollox, unless of course you can prove otherwise. Blondie must have the dry boak.....

Funny.

I made a statement then I explained it. All you've done is say "nonsense", "bollox" and "bollox".

Please can you explain what the bank DID actually want then? Thanks.

"If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader"

 

If yeah, whatever is the riposte of one of our would be leaders EH??!!! , things can only get worse.

I made a statement.

You told everyone it was nonsense.

I explained my statement.

You told me I was talking bollox.

I said "whatever".

Not much for folks to worry about, if indeed they care!

You're right it isn't nonsense it's unadulterated bollox. More disinformation from people "with their finger on the pulse".....

Yeah, whatever.

 

ETA. why do people keep repeating the nonsense that the bank " LBG's insistance that they are settled in full" ?

It isn't nonsense - at least not as far as the Ellis deal was concerned. They wanted to be taken out completely.

It's hardly surprising - it's a variation of what they did with the �£150m debt for equity swap in MIH, the only difference being that they would then sell Rangers to Ellis, because they don't want to own a football club.

Before you start pasting in stock market text, I'm not saying LBG currently "owns" Rangers' equity.

Anyway, it's all water under the bridge now so it doesn't really matter. Whether or not LBG's 'call' on Rangers has changed, and to what extent, I honestly don't know.

You don't open a business of this size unless you know you have customers/shareholders committed to its survival/success, you don't spend mega bucks on business plans before you have viable finance on a more than maybe basis.

 

A viable business plan/prospectus would have to be done by professionals, that would cancel out and rightly so ANY Rangers supporters body.

 

It would effectively remove any sembelance of power from said bodies in a fan buyout, that power would lie with the fans/shareholders and rightly so.

 

The proposed buyers the fans should finance everything, through a professional source/legal/accountants, the fans elect a board of say 6, with the professional overseer having a casting vote.

 

It isn't rocket science, but I don't think it will ever happen....to many people want to hold onto their little bit of perceived power.

Viable finance is probably upwards of �£45m. Huge money.

Nobody will raise that or anything like it without incurring significant costs and (hopefully) producing a viable, sellable business plan.

You won't be able to produce a business plan without doing DD (end even then you might not).

You won't get to do DD without first having huge money.

The entry fee is believed to be �£33m.

Suggesting that this is not being done because people are trying to hold onto perceived power (what power btw?) is absolutely staggering.

We don't believe that it's possible to buy the club, invest and cover potential liabilities purely as a result of grass-roots fund-building, at the moment. As frustrating and inconvenient as that is, that's what we believe. That's why different approaches are favoured i.e. selling the idea that the Rangers support at large will be happy to partner with credible buyers and will put in a lot of money. As soon as they're ready, we're good to go and - to a man - they all know that. The right man with the right plan will enjoy massive support from the RST (whether you believe that matters or not) and hopefully everyone else. Of course, the Trust - being a Trust - will try to advance the case for part-ownership in return for supporter investment, and with it a meaningful way for structures to be put in place whereby people can be openly and democratically elected by all other supporters to serve on the Board of the club.

Anybody we've spoken to has an assumption that Rangers fans will can be viewed 'as one' and will pull together if required. This is undoubtedly true if we all like what we hear and no exaggerated talk of divisions amongst the support will get in the way of that. Any positive vision presented by credible people with access to the required money could go right over the heads of any fans groups and directly to the supporters via the mass media - although they will no doubt hope for and appreciate backing; and if we all like it, we'll quickly remember that we're all on the same side.

There is an argument that fans should raise money first, but until there is an indication that this is welcome and fits in with something that is achievable and desirable overall, what is the point in fans raising �£10m or whatever when you don't know what you'd do with it? If there's some movement elsewhere, maybe things will happen.

Souness, Gough, Numan, McColl, Gordon Smith, Park, King and anyone else you care to mention feel the same way and that's why we don't all have the types of people we need fronting it right now. It all needs to fit together.

There are significant systemic and structural problems associated with buying and enabling RFC to thrive and prosper. The HMRC issue is one of them and LBG's insistance that they are settled in full is another.

Rocket science, it isn't. But with so many 'players' and complications involved its proved to be more difficult to resolve than anyone has been able to handle so far. That included Lloyds, Johnston, Muir, Murray, Park, King, Ellis and anybody else for that matter.

Having said all that, I still believe it'll happen at some point and I'm still hopeful that the Rangers support will be able to become meaningfully involved in the club, to whatever extent it wishes to be. Still working on it.

* this particular post doesn't seek to address structural issues within the Rangers support or fans' groups because the particular scenario I'm discussing assumes they will be largely irrelevant.

But surely collaboration does not depend on membership?

No, I don't suppose it does actually.

Resignation has never crossed my mind tbh and I don't think it would send out the right signals or achieve anything.

Do you?

As the RST has been an integral member of the Assembly since its conception and remained a member then by failing to do anything about it, the RST are supporting its set up.

 

My view is that the RST should resign from the Assembly but I know it's not a view that has much support from the RST board.

I definitely don't believe the RST should resign from the Assembly.

I believe they should be more actively collaborative, not less.

I was just thinking aloud regarding MF's suggestion that board members are not elected properly. He's not the only one to suggest that over the years.

 

In addition to that, across the community Trust members (past and present) still complain about a lack of communication and involvement - i.e. other than AGMs they are not consulted enough and, given the poor attendance at these meetings, the board's mandate to make and carry forward policy is worthy of examination.

 

In other words, how can the board be more accountable to its members when problems arise? The suggestion of standing yourself is fair enough - given the correct backing - but I know just how difficult it can be to influence or change direction.

 

Like I say, these same issues existed when I served so they're not new and I'm not saying they're easy to fix (if required).

 

Of course people will say how can you change such matters with a membership who perhaps don't contribute enough anyway (even when asked) but apathy is arguably the biggest obstacle to a meaningful, large-scale participation and representative group.

 

I'm glad you're working on such a package but how do you intend to overcome the various issues that have blighted and continue to blight these organisations and their relationships with the wider support?

Perhaps 'accountability' is an issue where members could provide some input or ideas if Board members are felt to be unaccountable? Improved communication would be a priority and we've made some progress but we need to try to make much more.

As for overcoming issues........ well it's a process isn't it? It would be good if we could all first agree on what the issues actually are and see if there's a will to resolve them. It would be difficult for me to describe what I believe the issues are on here without first raising them formally with others, which I haven't done yet. This is exactly the type of thing that needs to be done now that a chapter has closed (i.e. the Ellis etc period) and I believe it will be.

For me, the bottom line is that I don't believe the support is divided, but it is definitely fragmented and un-coordinated. We should work out how to fix that IMHO.

Are you seriously saying that, as a member of the RST board (albeit an unelected one), that you choose to put your own sensitivities ahead of your willingness to offer a meaningful response when confronted with your own failure? Go dry your eyes, big shot.

 

The only thing wrong with supporter representation is the willingness of representatives to deal with there own lack of achievement. I realise it's not easy to take but, please, every day I listen to this put 'Rangers First' nonsense from people who plainly are prepared to do nothing of the sort. Trying is always commendable but refusing to acknowledge a lack of achievement is unforgivable and nothing characterises the RST as much as its failure to achieve, on any level.

 

People ask why the club and the support are so fucked up - well in each case, look no further than those involved. Improvement can only come with fresh blood, root and branch change. And whether you like it or not UCB, you're part of the problem.

 

But hey, maybe you're just too busy being offended.

maineflyer - you neither offend me, upset me, or make me cry. Seriously, you don't. You're rude but you don't care, so it's not my problem.

Anyway.....

I'm well aware of what fans' groups have and haven't achieved, particularly the RST. And I'm well aware that fresh impetus and change is required. You happen to believe that nobody who's currently involved has any single attribute other than having tried. I disagree.

So sorry to disappoint you, but I intend to carry on. Now if you'd stop asking me to resign we can maybe move onto more productive ground?

I don't blame anyone for being annoyed when criticised. I don't like it myself and it really is difficult to accept being wrong sometimes. I also do understand when I talk about failure, it will put people on the defensive which is why I deliberately mentioned my part in said problems.

 

However, there must come a stage when you realise the genuine people amongst the organisations mentioned are being undermined by the reaction to criticism and unacceptable behaviour of others.

 

Obviously, I don't think it is fair to blame individuals for a problem that, as a support, we all contribute to but when boss talks about elephants in the room, he's probably right unfortunately. I think we all know that - other than a few obstinate people; the ones who won't accept their part in said failure.

 

With regard to the RST, Maineflyer talks about a complete overhaul of the board via resignations. Sure, that is perhaps overly dramatic - after all not everyone is failing I'm sure - but surely it is difficult to continually justify board appointments, re-elections and ongoing policy on such a low turnout/contribution/consultation of the membership?

 

Before anyone accuses me of being a hypocrite, I appreciate these same representative issues were present when I served; of which I was attempting to address in part shortly before I resigned. The more serious challenges I was less able to answer and two years down the line they still exist.

 

So when you talk about the absorption of constructive criticism, what kind of ways do you think the Trust (and Assembly by logical extension) could improve their constitution in order to make them more immediately representative?

 

Both organisations talk about being democratic and initially at least they are as such. However, both organisations have minimal 'ordinary' member participation which suggests inherent problems.

 

As such, while MF may well have a shotgun approach, the point he's making isn't something that should be swatted away as no-one should be wearing a bullet-proof vest here.

Frankie.

I can't really comment on the Assembly's constitutional position without first discussing it with the guys in the Assembly. All I can say is that from where I'm sitting I believe it is fundamentally and inherently subservient, and therefore inadaquate.

The RST's constitution is not a major issue in my eyes so I'd like to ask what's behind the question?

In terms of member participation, the biggest obstacle is time and resources but there is a genuine will (backed by initiatives) to enable people to become more involved, as plgsarmy has indicated by use of examples. The bigger issue for me though, is getting into the mainstream with a credible, deliverable package. That's where I'm personally focussed right now but I have to say the environment is complex and it's going to be very challenging to piece all the necessary building-blocks together. It simply has to be done though, there is no other option.

If mr. flyer wants a better quality of response he only has to stop being overly dramatic and rude. But he already knows that.

Stilll can't believe Kaka's red card.

maineflyer.

I can't be arsed with you when you're in this kind if mood. I bet you could light up a room just by walking out of it.

Not much of a response from a big shot who, only a few short months ago, was going to change the world and seemed intent on telling everyone about it too. If all you can come back with is a smiley then you've fallen well short of your initial aspirations but you do at least appear to have made the expected grade in the RST.

 

I'm not aiming at you, I'm aiming at all of you. You're all just getting in the way and you haven't made one iota of difference. How's that for something to smile about?

:ffs:

Now, that completely misrepresents anything I ever said which is bit of a low blow. I said I hoped to contribute and make a difference, nothing more. Anyway, as you say its not about me so it'd be best best if you dropped that angle because its going nowhere and you have no knowledge of what I've done or haven't done as an individual.

I'm fully aware that you don't have any time for me or everybody else associated with the RST. Your contempt pre-dates my involvement and although it remains to this day, no words I write on this forum will make a blind bit of difference to that. You don't like words, you like action. Fine, so do I, so let's get on with it.

If only the RST would practise some of the reflection you mention perhaps we wouldn't have this continual refusal to act upon the justified criticism it gets. You might want to spend less time considering whether criticism is hard to take and more on whether those currently running the organisation should just admit the futility of their abilities and stand down.

 

The RST certainly is small but I suspect the commitment you refer to is more a statement of intent than delivery. The best the RST board could do for Ranger supporters is to stand down en masse and test genuine opinion through an open ballot that is in no way compromised by association with FF. Offer a temporary three month membership for (say) �£3 that would allow any supporter a reasonable opportunity to register and vote for an RST of their choice, before deciding whether what they get is an RST in which they wish to extend their membership.

 

You want credibility - sometimes you have to earn it. How many of you were actually elected? How many of those few elected members of the RST board actually believe they received enough votes to justify their presence?

 

Stand down, clear the decks and give the Trust a chance to breathe. You might not like it but, collectively, the current board no longer deserves to remain in place. If you find the criticism hard to take, try accepting some of it move aside.

Ouch! I hate it when you go so long without launching missiles in my direction, I should really post more often!

On that note, you have a disturbing habit of reaching for a machine gun when a pistol would do (not that I'm suggesting any colleagues should actually be shot btw, even if you might be open to the idea in principal!)

The reaction to constructive criticism and advice is disappointing.

Constructive criticism is being noted and absorbed mate.

To be slightly fair on a personal level mind you, fans groups and the people involved in them are also being directly and openly criticised for failure and generally speaking, the RST - despite being the smallest and most committed group - is taking the brunt of it (not particularly in the OP on this thread btw).

Sometimes public criticism is hard to take, so people bite back - I suppose that's just life and nobody's perfect.

I think most people will be more reflective when it matters.

The issues that prevent this from happening are the same as they were 12 months ago and the same as they will be in 12 months time.

Fancy a role going forward? I was thinking maybe as a motivational speaker.

:devil:

rbr:

 

It is easy to be negative so we have to use this issue as an opportunity for improvement.

 

I'd like to hear what the fan groups have to say on how they intend to approach the situation.

Speaking as an individual here, I think the first priority is to try to get a meeting arranged and to get a further understanding of how the land now lies at the club. AJ, Muir, LBG, MIH etc.

More strategically, my view is that there should ideally be some form of consolidation of approach and priorities amongst the fans groups. Whether that's possible or not I don't know yet but I believe this should be the aim.

Following on, I would like to see the 'Trust movement' move into the type of ground occupied at Newcastle which has widespread support and significant financial backing. I'm painfully aware that this is far easier to say than do, but anything else seems to me to be lightweight.

On the plus side, there are some building blocks in place already and I genuinely don't believe its an insurmountable task.

These are the things I'd like to start socialising and promoting, but there will need to be talks first to see if and how everyone can pool our resources and what people believe is achievable.

Can't necessarily comment on everything but would be interested in everyone's thoughts.

Is it normal for a club to use an agent to talk to another agent when a player is in contract? Is this how it works?