Jump to content

 

 

bossy

 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    486

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

0 Neutral
  1. bossy
    The problem with all these consortiums is that they are trying to enlist the support - knowing that there is a general malaise - but without actually offering us anything and without really telling us what their intentions are should they eventually get control. In addition, it does seem that they are trying to get control on the cheap. And it is always the same players and the same story. So David, you want the support to boycott the club? Tell us what the risks are. What happens if you are successful and what happens if you are not? What is your vision for the club going forward? Where does the support fit into that vision? How are things going to be different if you get control. You want a boycott? Give us a compelling reason to go down that road. And just being unhappy with the current board is not a compelling reason to try to bring the club to its knees so that you can buy it on the cheap.
  2. bossy
    David Murray did not sell for a pound. He sold for £18 million which was the amount of debt that got wiped off his balance sheet. There is a tendency to see Ticketus as a bogeyman. I am not convinced that is true. Certainly, they made an expensive mistake. But they would not be the first or last company to do that. Just ask Hewlett Packard who made an $8.8 billion mistake with the Autonomy acquisition. Furthermore, we do not know whether or not Ticketus made that famous phone call. Maybe they did but just happened to speak to the wrong person. I think the truth with regard to Ticketus is somewhat simpler. They saw an opportunity to do a great deal with a very well supported club and with whom they had done business before. Perhaps the details of just how they ended up getting burned will come out in due course and, hopefully, along with many other details of just what happened at Ibrox as the Crown Office develop their case against those already indicted and as other police investigations proceed.
  3. bossy
    There are too many agendas and too much infighting in all of this. I am a Trust member and will remain a trust member. I also own my shares via the RST. That will not change. However, I no longer have any confidence that meaningful supporter representation will ever happen. For me, this CIC and SD scheme is just another groupuscule with their own agenda. There will be lots of noise but, essentially, it will go nowhere. The same characters arguing over the same old ground.
  4. bossy
    Seems to that BuyRangers has the merit of being in existence and actually owning shares whereas this new 'scheme' is still at the proposal stage. If supporters are really interested in owning the club - which I personally doubt - then why bother setting up an alternative scheme?
  5. bossy
    Is there a scheme or are we still at the words stage? Has anything concrete been set up? Has any scheme been registered with the appropriate authorities? Do we know who will be entrusted with supporter's money? Will supporters have any way of influencing how their investment is used?
  6. bossy
    I am surprised that you don't know the answers to the first two questions. Is it normal for the ML to be directed to the Secretary? As an ML normally contains comments on the accounting and control environment I would have thought it should be directed to the Treasurer.
  7. bossy
    So, essentially, the auditors redrafted their report (presumably their management letter) as a result of your comments. Did you inform anyone else on the RST Board that you had a conversation with the auditors which caused them to redraft their ML? Did anyone else on the RST Board agree with your comments? Did the auditors consult with any other Board members prior to the redraft? When you saw the redraft, had the auditors shown it to any other Board members? Did your role on the Board require direct contact with the auditors? Did you have any contact with these auditors from any other professional activity?
  8. bossy
    I agree with some of what you say. The problem with the RST is that they have very laudable aims but - a bit like Paul Murray and Jim McColl - when push comes to shove they just never seem to be there. Actually, I am a supporter of the RST and a member. I also invested £500 through them at the time of the IPO. But I think they suffer from gross timidity and naivety when it comes to furthering their aims.
  9. bossy
    In my opinion, the only way it would work is if some rich guy acquired the club and then started putting in place the processes for fan ownership with a staged sell back of his/her shares. It simply isn't going to work from the bottom up. There is no appetite in the support, the supporter organisations either are not interested or have no idea how to make it happen and the in-fighting is a major negative. Now, if I won a couple of hundred million on the lottery I could and would make it happen ............
  10. bossy
    There is most certainly a double standard. Nobody is disputing that. However, the tax case had been floating around for some time before the media really got interested. In fact, it was only when David Murray left the scene. The media in Scotland is ever wary of powerful men. It is, I think, going to take more than some diligent digging by PJZ to counteract their fear of Lawwell.
  11. bossy
    The sad reality is that the majority of our support have no appetite for fan ownership. The only way it will ever happen is if it is imposed from above.
  12. bossy
  13. bossy
    If no laws have been broken then how can they be pro-active? Have you or anybody else lodged a formal criminal complaint?
  14. bossy
    Have Celtic and/or the various public bodies, councils, banks, etc. actually engaged in illegal behaviour? Because a formal criminal complaint and court case will probably be needed to force the media to break cover.
  15. bossy
    "Brian Quinn, 68, is best known today as the chairman of Celtic plc, the holding company for the Glasgow football club. But he was senior banking supervisor when the Bank of Credit and Commerce International collapsed with £7 billion of undeclared debts in 1991, leaving thousands of depositors out of pocket." http://www.theguardian.com/money/2005/jun/12/accounts.business1
×
×
  • 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.