bossy

Naming a new CEO is all very well but without controlling the Board he cannot do very much. So who are the requisitioners proposing to be on the Board in addition to Paul Murray?

ps. a wee birdie told me that the AGM could be on October 24th.

Whilst I don't know who said what about whom, and if this is simply a case of the Club spending money or rather causing public money to spent to silence a legitimate critic then I agree that that is out of order; isn't this a bit like the pot calling the kettle black?

 

Doesn't FF have a long record of banning individuals and deleting comments that it considers critical of its point of view and those of its supporters?

I have often disagreed with the 'party line' on FF and never been banned. It is not so much what you say but how you say it that gets people banned.

Like it or not, FF is the largest and most influential of our online forums and Chris Graham is a capable and influential blogger. By going after FF and Chris, the club are, in my opinion, deliberately trying to silence dissenting voices and disrupt any organised opposition in the run-up to the AGM.

This is all getting very nasty now. You really have to wonder why the Board would choose to go after the biggest online fans forum and one of its most respected members. There is an old saying that it is always best to get your retaliation in early. So, one wonders whether this is about putting FF and Fury on the defensive or even closing them down prior to releasing bad news.

Of course, they don't go after the people who are really trying to damage the club like McGillivan or McConville. And they continually cosy up to the BBC who are equally culpable when it comes to trying to damage us.

names will have to be put forward soon.

I know that the McColl team have been looking at CVs. However, I don't know where they stand with actually doing something about it.

On Thursday 8th August, they told a large room full of fans that the accounts were due mid September, but they were going to try to have them out by the end of August. That was over 7 weeks ago. The end of August has passed and mid September has passed. We're now at the end of September and supposedly being told they'll be out by 10th October which just happens to be the last possible date for them before a 31st October AGM? Is it just because it's a Friday that something smells fishy?

A lot of people seem to be awaiting these accounts as if they are akin to the second coming. I don't think they will reveal much in the way of dirty dealing or other forms of 'spivery' even if they exist. What they will tell us is how much cash we have burned through, how much is left and whether we are going to need to raise more cash either by a share issue or an asset sale.

The good news, of course, is that we are unlikely to have much if any debt ... mainly because nobody will lend to us. So, in that respect, our balance sheet will probably look better than most other clubs in Scotland. But a pretty balance sheet will not stop us going under if we run out of cash and cannot get any more.

So, more important than the numbers ... are we a going concern? Does the Board have access to sufficient funds to see out the season? Where will future revenue come from? Are revenue projections credible? Get answers to those questions and we will at least have some clarity as to what the future holds.

I am always leery when you hear just one side of the story. As the saying goes, there are always three sides to any dispute. What Barry says, what Le Guen says and the truth. We will probably never know the truth.

What we do know is that Le Guen was not prepared for the 'goldfish bowl' that is football in the West of Scotland, that he lost the fans and lost the dressing room. Murray chose to back the players and the fans. Was it a mistake? We will never know. But not long after we did make it to the UEFA Cup final and for that experience I will always be grateful.

Indeed but would it really surprise you if they did? Some of these people seem eager to antagonise Rangers fans no matter the cost to their credibility.

I have no doubt that they enjoy antagonising Rangers fans. It usually works and makes the reptiles at the BBC feel like they are real players. But the BBC is also a very large corporation with a management structure, rules and procedures. And at some point, someone very senior and who has a rather more balanced view of the world is likely to rein them in on the grounds that 'nuclear options' like judicial reviews should be used for things that really matter. That person might ask - as one of my bosses once famously did - "Have you taken your retard pills today?"

Were they to seek a judicial review for something as banal (in the grand scheme of things) as the wording used to describe a football club then that would take obsession to a whole new level.

In the case of the articles being published by Gers forums and sites I think it comes down to the writer and the specific content being published. In the mainstream media on sites such as the beeb, Scotsman, Herald and many others it's extremely common for Rangers related articles to be published completely anonymously, so why should Rangers fans replying to forum topics or writing current affairs articles about the club or the mainstream media's handling of our club feel the necessity to always publish comments or article content under real names?

Just my view. On the few occasions where I have been published by the MSM it was always under my name. I felt no need for - and did not ask for - anonymity.

I mainly post on FF but I find that Gersnet tends to be a more 'thoughtful' forum. FF has the advantage of being a much larger forum and a wider range of viewpoints. RM, in my opinion, tends to be the worst for abuse, posters shouting others down and lack of moderation.

On FF at least, quite a few of the 'regulars' know each others real identities and have often socialised in the real world. Personally, I have never made any attempt to hide my real identity and have had pro-Rangers articles and letters published under my real name.

I think that anonymity needs to have its limits. When it is misused and abused it should be lifted. If you have something to say then you really need to have the courage to say it under your real name.

Just out of interest I read your contribution on both FF an RM. I thought the responses were instructive. While there were many posters on both sites who were in agreement with your comments, there were a few who clearly have a well of bitterness and hatred that rational discussion is not going to change. So it comes down to a willingness to moderate their excesses which, on one site in particular, appears to be missing.

It doesn't actually matter who is behind the shares. What matters are their intentions towards Rangers, whether they are in for a quick buck or the long haul, whether they intend to invest more cash when the inevitable (imho of course) cash call comes or whether they are looking to extract profit through asset sales.

What we do know is that certain investors will not reinvest with the current board in place. But what are the intentions of the others?

I am just curious as to who would buy the stadium and what would they pay? I mean, just how valuable is a second hand stadium in Govan? It is only really usable by one team and, were that team to disappear (god forbid) then the purchasers have an asset which has no real value.

So the Rangers Peoples Front are fighting with the Popular Front for Rangers and the Rangers Freedom Fighters. At the same time we see the formation of the Rangers Liberation Front and a plea for unity from the self styled spokesman for the Revolutionary Rangers Supporters Junta.

Meanwhile, in the real world, most Ranger's supporters just want an end to the soap opera, a management team they can trust and success on the park.

Actually, very few of us, including me, really know what is going on behind the scenes. So, in the absence of anything better to do and hiding behind their anonymity, the keyboard warriors of the online community take solace in their ability to engage in internecine warfare secure in the knowledge that it is totally irrelevant to the vast majority of Rangers supporters.

There are two possible interpretations of this latest effort by Paul Murray:

1. It is a holding action to make sure the support and others don't forget that the requisitioners are still there whilst they fine tune their strategy for the AGM.

2. It is a rather weak last throw of the dice by a group of requisitioners who have effectively accepted that they will be out-voted at the AGM.

I don't know which of the two is the most accurate but my instinct suggests the latter. I hope I am wrong.

The reason people like Spence and Spiers make these kinds of comments is because they know it will provoke a reaction. And that reaction makes them appear more important and more relevant than they really are. It also allows them to portray themselves as victims of the big bad bigots. Spence has been playing the 'woe is me card' in spades these last few days.

The only reason this latest spat has reached such prominence is because of the strength of the reaction. While BBC SCotland may be a cesspit of anti-Rangers bigotry, the BBC as a whole is not. And they have policies and procedures which include reacting to a large volume of complaints. It is up to us to react with equal or greater ferocity to future slurs on us and our club. The bigot can be isolated but we have to want to do it.

IMHO, you don't make claims about the club running out of money in conjunction with EGM requisitions if you don't have a fair idea of the overall situation. Sure, they may not know everything down to the last penny or some of the outsourced contract details but I'm confident we'd not be in this position if these guys didn't have an accurate enough appraisal of the finances.

Personally, I think it is highly likely that the club will be coming back to the capital markets for more money in the next year or so. How soon that will be will depend on the state of the accounts when we finally see them. But I think that even the club have admitted they are going to need more capital.

So then you have a very simple question. Is there sufficient confidence in the current Board and management that investors will be willing to stump up more cash when asked? And if that answer is no then we have a real problem. Because no more cash may lead to all sorts of extremely undesirable consequences.

How much would be nice? Who underwrites it? Where would the money go? What assurances would he give that another issue wouldn't be needed the following year? How do we fund the club going forward?

 

Clearly, we don't need the minutiae of every single little issue but, IMHO, the more open and positive they are about their plans and the changes they'd bring, the better their chances of success at any vote.

 

Murray himself says there's around 40% of the investors 'floating' on this. I think it may be less than that but better safe than sorry.

 

Finally, I'd imagine Murray and plenty bears thought they had our default support when the newco was for sale last year. I think they were lazy then and I don't want them to repeat their mistake (leaving aside any D&P/BDO stuff).

Based on comments I got from someone not a million miles from this stushie, I think that McColl may have around 40% of the votes. There is, however, concern in the McColl camp as to just how many votes the Easdales command and which way they will vote. If, indeed, they have the 20% of votes that they claim to have then it could be a very close run thing.

There would seem to be a decent amount of activity going on behind the scenes and it is not just McColl and Paul Murray who are involved. There are some well-connected corporate Bears who are making a few phone calls, sending an email here or there and gathering the odd CV. So I would not be surprised to see some new names appearing on the next week or so.

In my view, gaining the vote of the supporter-shareholders could be key. Obviously, it would be a great opportunity for someone like the RST to get one of their guys on the Board. But if handled right, it could also be a tremendous PR coup for the McColl camp and go a long way to harvesting the approximately 12% of votes held by the support.

Maybe Black is just a moron and English is over-thinking this. Nice to see that he excuses other players betting. Nothing like a double standard.

I think the withdrawal of Blin also heralds the withdrawal of McColl although he may not shout it from the roof tops. More likely he will just let the AGM run its course and fade away quietly into the background ... again.

Aren't they all (or nearly all at least) represented on the RFFF anyway?

 

Though not all RFFF committee members were invited.

I believe that they are on the RFFF committee in their personal capacities and not as representatives of their specific organisations. I also have some concern as to how independent of the club the RFFF is.

Mccoll will play his hand tomorrow , statement and other good news

But for them to advise in statement coming

 

Waltersboy on FF

I am not sure that Waltersboy is all that authoritative.

Vanguard Bears ‏@Vanguard_Bears1m

VB understands that the RFFF met Craig Mather & Brian Stockbridge today & were told categorically the clubs finances are in good shape.

It is my understanding that the club are trying to use the RFFF to bypass talking to the other supporters groups (RST, Assembly, Association). I would be disappointed if the RFFF allowed them to do that.