Oleg_Mcnoleg

He's free, he's reputedly on relatively little money, and it's a one year deal with the possibility, but no guarantee, of renewal, we're potless and we'veno scouting system. It's not going to set the pulse rating but, unr the circumstances, I'm not too unhappy. If he stays fit, he'll do ok.

Having that!

We should have as many threads as possible devoted to this news.

If Lawell follows him out, scottish football can start to clean itself up a bit.

Can see why he's going though. It's only in Europe that he's going to get any credit and his club's downsizing so that's getting harder.

This is getting pretty inane.

I'm afraid I'm finding this quite funny.

Any normal person would just filter the messages out and let the thing run its course. Reckon he calls the polis when the local kids play knock and run on Easdale Towers?

I may have missed something, but I thought the context of this thread was losing MP in order to escape an onerous s&lb deal which hampers the club in future, rather than getting rid of it because it's not producing the goods?

Quite.

The point is that we'd still be using it, we'd just not own it anymore. And the amount we paid to use it would be the same plus whatever mark-up whoever bought it charged. Sale and leaseback will provide a short-term injection of cash followed by increased out-goings thereafter.

We can argue the toss about youth development and whether it's good enough (it's not but then the expectations of it are over-inflated too). But it's a first team training ground and club HQ as well. And none of this discussion is in the context of some overhaul of training or development. It's an attempt to cash in in the short term and is a fucking dreadful idea.

Stadium next...

Agreed mate. Those who stubbornly won't sign, have "agenda's"

If there are any, I suspect it's simply because of where it originates from. I'd hope that even the most fervent 'back-the -boarders, would have their spider senses tingling if the fucking training ground and stadium were sold and leased back.

I signed. Can't see why anyone with the club's interests at heart wouldn't

I'll be honest with you Oleg' date=' in terms of gaining insightful information or getting to the truth - I actually think such meetings are a total waste of time. All our fans groups over the years have had various meetings with SDM, Whyte, Green etc - did it really do us any good in terms of getting to the truth ?

 

The only benefit I can see from such meetings is holding them to account in the future when the answers they furnish at such meetings are not consistent with their actions.[/quote']

 

Fair comment. The accountability aspect is a start though. As you say, they can be hauled up on it later or, more worryingly, if they refuse to even give commitments it should surely set the alarm bells ringing loudly?

Permit me to correct these misconceptions which some of you clearly harbour - VB are not "backing any horse" or giving "unconditional support" to the board. If you wish to believe that then by all means fill your boots - but in doing so you only serve to add to the misinformation which is already out there.

 

I think you will find the ones backing a horse are those whose support of Dave King appears to be unequivocal.

 

Perhaps we as a support should reflect if it really is the role of our supporters groups to ostracize themselves from meaningful' date=' constructive or informative dialogue with the board - even if it is to raise concerns and seek assurances.[/quote']

 

Ignoring the fact that the 'misunderstanding' is surely understandable given the responses to the those who've questioned the board's competence and/or integrity, if the statement about the VB's recent meeting had given anything of substance about what was asked and answered, and what assurances were given it would surely go some way to correcting any misinformation.

Takes two to have a constructive dialogue. Those from the UoF who met with the board thought they were having constructive dialogue only for the assurances over Auchenowie and Ibrox seemingly made in the meeting to be withdrawn.

Any sane bear must surely harbour concerns about King, or anyone else, gaining total control. I'd hope no Rangers owner will ever be treated with anything less than healthy scepticism ever again.

its fair enough that they got to meet the board and ask them questions

 

if however, upon receipt of those answers they start spouting about how they have faith in the board , all anyone need remember is their stance on whyte.

Well given that their press notice says nothing about what questions were asked or what answers given, it's impossible to judge whether they can justify the seemingly unconditional support given to the board. If they want to keep that information to their members then that's up to them. But they can't expect anyone else to agree with them.

I don't think that's the issue, I think that fan ownership will only be delivered by a single-purpose vehicle. The Trust continues to represent its members on the day-to-day issues, like the Club's PR man, as an example, and that's fine, but perhaps that approach won't unite enough fans behind it to be successful enough on the fan owership front? That's basically the premise of the presentation.

 

No bad words to be had about the Trust, as I say, I think fans should be represented on those issues too - but perhaps the two-pronged approach just isn't viable?

 

Due to other more personal issues Mark is taking a hard line against it. That's perfectly fine, all that's asked is that you look at what is proposed with an open mind and decide if that sounds achievable. If not, we continue as is.

I can see that the Trust's remit has expanded in ways that haven't pleased everyone. But it was set up specifically to promote fan ownership, wasn't it? So we come back to the issue of the baggage it now seems to come with and the perceived need for a 'neutral', baggage-free vehicle to achieve the same goal. Again, fair enough.

But if it's successful, we're still going to have the same divisions over the club. But they'll be within the group rather than/as well as on the message boards/twitter. Stances on, for eg, board members will need to be taken.

Hope I'm making sense: genuinely trying to work out what's going on. Massively supportive of the concept of fan share ownership and have started researching coops etc. But I'm not cheerleading for the trust (not in it) nor FF (on since the old email forum but based in London and too much of a handwringer for 'the clique'). But they banned me from RM before I'd even managed to post!).

It is though. The views of the Rangers community are being sought. That doesn't mean it's competition for the Trust or the formation of a new fans group. It's a proposal to bang heads, get all fans together and working towards one common goal. If it doesn't get the support initially from all sections then it won't be progressed.

 

Mark is trying to make this look like some anti-Trust exercise when that isn't the case. I continue to be a member of the RST - I believe in it, and I think the people on board are capable of representing my views, but I think we have to explore fresh ways to bring more of the support to fan ownership.

I've come over from FF specifically to get a bit of clarity on this. It was in short supply over there.

Implicit in what you've been saying seems to be that the RST 'brand' having too much baggage to act as a vehicle for fan share ownership. Or am I misreading it?

Otherwise I can't see why any scheme couldn't have been accommodated under the RST. And if so, why not just say it? If the RST has become so divisive that too many won't touch it then so be it but surely it would be better to just come out and say it?