

The Real PapaBear
-
Posts
2,366 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by The Real PapaBear
-
Two things: First, McCoist is not on the board and not responsible for the running of the club. His salary is a matter for the board and for no-one else. In what way was he "keen to hide his salary"? What form did this concealment take? Did he refuse to answer whan asked? Second, why when the subject is the board breaking the law, are you deflecting the thread into more Ally bashing?
-
It was. The forum - generally - is worthy of compliment.
-
it was a direct compliment to those who deserve it.
-
To be fair, I have been very pleasantly surprised at the continued level of debate. So far we've managed to have diamatrically opposing views about something we all care passionately about and the vitriol and insult has been remarkable by its absense. Well done, us.
-
Right on cue.
-
Don't tell me; your mate once saw someone who looked like them at a game or they were seen enjoying corporate hospitality in years gone past.
-
As others have already shown, yes they broke the law - and probably not for the first time either - but it's the highlighted part which indicates where your main problem lies.. You think this is "bad publicity for Rangers" - whereas in actual fact, it's only bad publicity for the shower of clowns running the club. You are unable to differentiate between the gang in charge - with not a Rangers fan among them - and Rangers FC, a club currently being held hostage by people wearing suits rather than their customary masks. We, not they, are Rangers. We are the ones who keep and kept the club alive, not them. So actually, Mr Paterson's admirable actions have only achieved good publicity for Rangers and represent a healthy victory in the war being fought to win back our club.
-
You don't seem to have a very high opinion of your fellow fans, I must say. Do you think these people are just mindless sheep, giving up their seats and possibly putting the club they love into a precarious situation because DK told them to? DK is now some sort of Jim Jones who has mesmerised the support to such an extent that thousands of Bears can no longer think for themselves and are drinking the Kool-aid? King could think and say whatever he wanted but unless it resonated with much of the fanbase, he would be a lone voice. It is not King who is withholding ST money; it is a vast swathe of the support - our fellow fans who see the situation in the same way as DK and most other right-thinking people; intolerable and in need of change.
-
in what way is DK killing the club?
-
it is not, and should not ever be, an either/ or situation. By all means, let's investigate the signing of contracts without legal representation and then let's get to the bottom of Wallce's claim that the CC companies refuse to do business with us due to supporter militancy, whereas he seems to have known since January about their intentions.
-
No, your point was that we should ask Mr Maher what he would do or have done differently. This is, as you must be aware, nonsensical, since Mr Maher is no more privy to the workings (??) of the club than you or I. How then can you expect him to provide a business plan going forward without knowing how and where things have been going wrong? You will also have to explain how making a complaint about a possible offense reduces Mr Maher's credibility. As to your point about Wallace not being aware of the actual state of the club, if he was not aware of the financial situation then he should not have made public statements reassuring shareholders about it. This is, at best, negligent. I'm also uncomfortable with your increasingly defensive stance about this board. I would suggest that you try to take a step back and look at what you've just posted: you are now more concerend about the motivations of the man reporting an offense than with the fact that the offence may have been committed. That's not a healthy way to think.
-
Why would you have to ask him that? That would simply be a pointless diversion from the central issue, which is that the Chief Executive of the company is being accused of deliberately misleading shareholders. The thoughts or hypothetical actions of the person making the complaint are utterly irrelevant. That's like saying that I should only report a hit-and-run accident if I could explain how I would have driven differently.
-
lol - although Henning Wehn was really funny on HIGNFY last night, tbh.
-
Wallace at odds with Easdale over Rangers finance
The Real PapaBear replied to ian1964's topic in Rangers Chat
not so much *who* as *what*. They have a small holding but a huge influence due to the voting proxy. Why on earth would that ever be the case unless they were doing the bidding of the people who own the shares? Your knowledge of the field of finance far exceeds mine, so if you can think of explanationsfor the discrepancy, fair enough: but I can't begin to imagine why anyone would give someone else voting proxy over their shares without wishing to be in control of that proxy. As for them being unwilling to be front men? These are small time businessmen whereas the people one would imagine who are calling the shots operate at a vastly different level. There is a cliche that "every man has his price" and the price for the owners of a provincial bus company is probably not too steep. -
Wallace at odds with Easdale over Rangers finance
The Real PapaBear replied to ian1964's topic in Rangers Chat
then answer me this, Oh Trusting One, what is their personal stake in the club and what is their voting proxy? How do you account for the discrepancy between the two? -
Wallace at odds with Easdale over Rangers finance
The Real PapaBear replied to ian1964's topic in Rangers Chat
well, not strictly true, bud; the Easedales are being run by the people running the show, and they are trying to hide that -
OK, I'm getting the very strong impression that you're just writing stuff, anything, doesn't matter how irrelevant - just so that you can say you have answered a question; although you clearly haven't. So a couple of questions: "If they were based on financial importance". a) What does "financial importance" mean? I've never heard the term before. and b) would you care to finish the conditional? if they were based on financial importance..then what? Why are you talking about FDs? Is the Finance Director the only member of the board in line for a bonus here? Why are you focussng on one position only and why are you ignoring the fact that the rest of the board are taking massives bonuses whilst presiding over a failing business? A cynical person might thnk you are trying to deflect the question down a cul-de-sac of irrelevance. Why are you avoiding the question: "what would the basis for the bonuses have to be for them to be acceptable to you?"
-
Seriously? The main thing for you is that these bonuses are not "football based"? If the basis of the bonus is of such importance, what would the basis for the bonuses have to be for them to be acceptable to you?
-
He's one of the best three I've ever seen in Scotland. Him, McGrain and Gary Stevens. I'd need a three sided coin to choose between them.
- 70 replies
-
- rangers fc
- rangers fans
- (and 13 more)
-
I don't know enough about Nerlinger's post playing career, but my gut reaction to this is "moonbeams"
-
Albeit they are telling us what we already know, the positive thing is that they, too, seem to be aware of the nature and extent of the problem and are public in their acknowledgement. It's a start. Essentially, the first part comes down to an acknowledgement that the club needs money (which we know), claims that things are heading in the right direction (which we can't know and have to take their word for) and a request for further funding from the fans (i.e they want us to trust them with our money, despite us not yet having seen one single reason to do so). There is no acknowledgement of the deepset and widespread distrust of the board among fans, far less any plan to counter this. In short the message is: "Ok guys, things were screwed up big time and pockets were filled with loot, but that was the Old Board, honest guys, but things are steady now and heading in the right direction, trust us on this, smooth sailing and happy days ahead filledwith sunshine and laughter, but there's just the small matter of cash, which, by the way, we need youse to give us and yes we know that the previous board pissed 95% of the money you gave them up against a wall but this time it will be different, honest, trust us, would we lie to you? Oh, by the way, if you give us the money, we'll have the championship back home in no time at all, so we will, and not only that we'll be back in Europe and have tons and tons of scouts and youths and medics and a shiny new stadium and all sorts of goodness - just could you give us the money? Again. Please."
-
Sandy Jardine was one of those players who made you proud that they played for us and a player, like Danny McGrain, that people only ever said good things about no matter which team they supported. His is a name that will always be near the top of any list of the greatest Rangers players ever. Gone but never forgotten by those of us who watched you play Sandy.
- 70 replies
-
- rangers fc
- rangers fans
- (and 13 more)