TheTinMan99
-
Posts
819 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by TheTinMan99
-
This only shows that you're as clueless about football, as you are about boardroom matters. Building good teams takes time, it's more than just spending money. Is there really that much difference between the championship and the spl, ******** aside? If I didn't know that people from this forum had met you, I would be convinced you're on the boards payroll. As it is, EDIT craig : No personal insults. Heed the warning please
-
Aye, let's give them another 120 days, or 300 days this time. King's cash is sitting waiting. We need it now, or we wont make it until the end of the year. Not without another loan farce. For someone that is sick of the football we're producing, why would you be prepared to wait for funds for new players? We need to start building an spl side quality NOW, not at the start of next season. Giving a new team a year in the championship to gel, will see us in with a real chance of winning the spl first time out. Even if you separate all the boardroom crap, no one can deny that the cash would be welcome. It's sitting there waiting, so why the need for delay. Don't answer that, it's rhetorical. I already know why.
-
I'm sure Wallace said it started from the AGM date, so it's due at the end of the month, I think. I'm sure it will have enough ambiguity to see us through to when books go on sale, complete with calls of impending doom if they don't sell enough books. Expect a lengthy politician type statement that is barely understandable to the layman. The way I see it, if it doesn't include a new immediate share issue that welcomes King's money, all their positions are untenable.
-
Was it not set up to help the old company? I'm bit vague on that, but if it was, then according to your rational, all monies should be returned. You may have some valid points, but most charitable donations end up getting used for things other than the exact original intent. This is why they have committees, and why it was offered to a vote. It seems that most of the displeasure is with the actual people on the committee, and this incident is being used as the first available excuse to exert pressure. That's not solely directed at yourself. I think we would all do well to remember that it is ran by unpaid fellow supporters, and perhaps any issues could be dealt with in a more discreet manner. What is the point in all these grandstanding statements? Send them an e-mail, and you will probably get a reasonable response. If they are not contactable, then that's separate issue.
-
If one of my previous donations was causing me this much stress, I would ask for it back, or accept that it was a donation to an ambiguous cause, and learn to live with it. Washing dirty linen in public is doing us no favours. If you go on the premise that the support is the main body of the club, surely defending one against a frivolous legal action is well within the remit of the RFFF? The ramifications of Easdale going ahead and winning this would have impacted on us all, and more importantly, the club. It's easy to say that Easdale had no intention of going through with it, but when you're the one on the receiving end of the action, it's more likely to feel like a realistic prospect. We're letting him off the hook with this one, in favour of petty arguments. It's not surprising, it's just getting a little tedious. Let us us not forget that the SOS's only crime was a poorly moderated Facebook page. A director of our club suing people over a few zoomers comments on fucking Facebook. The RFFF quite rightly nipped it in the bud. It was certainly a better use of the money than it sitting there doing nothing.
-
That money needs spending asap. Either that, or give everyone a percentage of what's left back. These statements are an embarrassment. There must be some way we can get it directly into the club, without the board getting their greedy paws on it. My memory of it's initial aim is a bit clouded, but as far as I remember, it was set up to help when the old company was in distress. I have a feeling that no matter what we spend it on, someone somewhere will have something to moan about. Let's just focus on the negatives, and not mention that the RFFF stopped one of our directors from bankrupting a fellow fan, for an extremely petty reason. I see it as a victory for the little man, not something to provoke the faux indignation that our fans groups seem to enjoy practising these days. I would respectfully suggest that anyone who donated, and has been so offended by this, contact the RFFF privately by email, and request whatever portion is left of their donation back. The real story is getting lost in the agenda war. A DIRECTOR OF OUR CLUB THREATENED TO BANKRUPT A FELLOW FAN. The RFFF stopped it in it's tracks, without spending a dime of your donations. What should have been a notable victory for fan power, has now become this mess. I have no doubt that Mr Easdale will be sitting with wry smile on his coupon now, in what should have been his Waterloo.
-
Starting to think this is exactly how it will go down. It's amazing how they are still blaming previous board members, when it's the same shareholders that have voted them in. Our support is so passive and confused, that I can see us accepting Kings money walking away, and carrying on with the same pish. Expecting them to dilute their shares, and effectively hand over all their power to King, is like expecting turkeys to vote for Christmas. The season book trust scheme was the only power we had to effect change. Sadly, I don't see it getting the support it needs to be effective. If King does walk away, the entire boards position is untenable, but like a cockroach, they will probably ride it out and survive. All bar the usual sacrificial lamb, maybe Wallace, but probably Somers will get the blame.
-
Hugh Keevins: King's propaganda campaign......
TheTinMan99 replied to ian1964's topic in Rangers Chat
It's rather sad that the U 20's have to play behind closed doors. It's good experience for them to play in front of crowds, so it's not a major shock if they suddenly get in the first team. Anyone starting any pish at an U 20's game should get barred for life. It's a bit pathetic. -
I didn't say it wasn't acceptable, I said the fence doesn't exist anymore. You either trust the board, or you don't. Most people don't, regardless of Mr King, or any crazed bloggers. Imagine our future if King walks away. The season ticket sales will be irrelevant, unless Wallace pulls a rabbit out his arse after this mystical 120 days.
-
Blaming the trust for a possible fall in book sales, rendering the club in doubt as a going concern. But you knew that. I know you're putting yourself across as 'on the fence', but there's really no fence to sit on anymore. It's about as black and white as it gets.
-
Going by the accounts, it seems like we budget for about 80 thousand books. That's what we would need to break even In normal years without share issues.
-
Man Utd's management team/coaches
TheTinMan99 replied to Ser Barristan Selmy's topic in General Football Chat
The wages of our coaching staff will always be reasonably high, no matter who we employ. Why not compare Ally's and Moyes's salary. Does it not suit your agenda? Our player, and coaching staff salaries are not the reason we are in the shit, again. Considering the way Man Utd are playing, I'd rather have our coaches at the moment. Six home defeats, with far superior players to what we have, doesn't really deserve a decent wage. -
I had you down as a wise enough fellow to not fall for the propaganda in the accounts. Pray tell why we need every season book in advance to avert certain doom? Are we going to be active in the transfer market? I also wish you would stop saying that the trust want our assets signed over. They are merely asking for a security on them. Fulfill the fixtures, and the security obligation ends. It's no different to what Laxey were getting. All that aside, the club will get all the book money at the normal time, in exchange for security on our two biggest, most important assets. No drip feeding, no holding back, no boycott. Give me one reason why the board can't offer this. They already said they wouldn't use them for any future loans.
-
Man Utd's management team/coaches
TheTinMan99 replied to Ser Barristan Selmy's topic in General Football Chat
Where did you read it? On your own " I hate the Rangers coaching staff" blog? Do you really expect someone from this forum to have the knowledge to be able to confirm or deny this? Criticising their abilities to do their job is one thing. This is just a poor show. -
BH does seem to have morphed into some board supporting fanboi. Hacked account?
-
Our player wage bill isn't bloated. It's actually the lowest it's ever been in recent history. Our income may also be reduced, but not as much as our wage and transfer budget has. I'm sure we'll have quality applicants lining up for a job with zero budget, and an expectation to piss the league, win every game, and get to a cup final or two. Don't let your dislike of Ally as a manager blind you to the facts. He's the most under-funded manager in our history, with the worst squad we've had in more than 20 years.
-
You're such a CEO whore.
-
It's clearly a tarrier taking the piss, but I think we all need to grow a thicker skin. We can expect this pish for the foreseeable. Quite rightly complained about mind.
-
He's sounding more and more like a politician with each passing day. Probably about as trustworthy.
-
If King doesn't invest, there's a very real chance that we won't complete our fixtures. Did you not read the latest accounts? The 'Laxey' loan was secured for much less value than the properties were worth, so I don't see your point there, BH. If you think that Ibrox and Murray park will be safer in the hands of this board, or future administrators, there's not much I can say to change that mindset. There's no intention to 'drip feed' any monies. It would all be handed over in one chunk, as the UOF statement yesterday made quite clear. If it's good enough for Laxey, it's good enough for us. I think that's the point that this scheme is trying to make. You're putting more value on a million pound loan, compared to more than 10 times that amount in book sales. These are not normal times, therefore we have to use whatever methods available to secure our main assets.
-
We don't need to spend because we're Rangers. We need to spend because we're pretty shite. Think about what you're saying. A club with 36k book holders too skint to buy a single player? I dread to think of Jig playing centre half next season, a year older and against better strikers.
-
Never thought I'd see the day when a Rangers fan demanded our manager have a zero budget. The same fuds will be moaning how shite we are next season after we scrape an away draw. All the pissing and complaining we did when we got the transfer ban too.....
-
A failure to complete our fixtures would be the equivalent of not paying a loan back. Not sure why you and others are so against securing our assets against this. Am I missing something?