buster.
-
Posts
13,546 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
95
Everything posted by buster.
-
I simply disagree and believe the AIM rule 11 would apply IF renewals were significantly down on the comparitive stage last year. More especially given warning in the business review.
-
I doubt the SPFL (with same CEO as then SPL) would be happy with todays headlines so I doubt the leak wouldn't have come from them as a body. If what you are saying about the SPFL telling us we're not getting any money is true then there would be more motive or Rangers to do so but at the sametime it wouldn't achieve much. I'd have thought the leak is more likely to come from an individual involved whose real loyalties ly neither at Ibrox or with the SPFL.
-
Chairman Of Leeds Supporters Trust Backs Rangers Fans
buster. replied to chilledbear's topic in Rangers Chat
Do you prefer 'homebred dodgy geezers' ? Are you voting UKIP ? -
Does a significant drop in ST renewals effect:- - Financial Condition - Expectation of its performance (projections) In looking for the section within the business review it perhaps highlight the timescale the club are working to and justifying thre being no annoucement. 2 months would take you to second half of June. However is there an argument that if numbers are way down at this stage compared with last year and that they can give no good reason why this is suddenly going to change...................the 'without delay' part of the rule should be focussed upon.
-
You are filed under 'loyal but supine bendovers'
-
I appreciate your view and whilst my perspective is different, I can understand it. What I would say is that there had been efforts made to engage with the board and IIRC at the request of GW there was a meeting which resulted in an apparent broken promise to call UoF after the PLC board considered matters discussed at meeting. Thereafter (4 days) followed an in part disengenuous statement from the board. What you have is a fans group looking at all options to try and promote awareness and garner support to oppose and help prevent a selling off of the main assets by a board who clearly can't be trusted. If and when the assets have been transfered/soldthen then it's too late. Regards the legal question I don't see it likely that Mr.Easdale will have much success if he chooses to carry out his threat.
-
Petition at 5,000 signatures but how many ST's have been renewed ? And if the number is significantly down on last year why doesn't the PLC inform the market under AIM rule 11 'without delay' ? Under Aim rule 11 A company must issue notification without delay of any new developments which are not public knowledge concerning a change in: its financial condition; its sphere of activity; the performance of its business; or its expectation of its performance."
-
I think of the two you don't recognize that the one on the left might be Kenny Watson and the other (more of a guess) Martin Henderson.
-
However with the apparent legal threat from SE, it means a lot more will know of and sign the petition. First you had GW with his Twitter O&G (in some quarters it was called a Q&A). Now it would seem to me as Mr.Easdale wants to get in on the OG trail. So not only does the football spend or the executive board spend not give value for money.....neither does the Spinning dept.
-
So you have the small print of petition provider and importantly the 'indication' that this would happen within the particular petition's communication. - You have a sender with a connection to the receiver....(supporter/customer/shareholder) - A sender who seeks no commercial gain - A sender with a genuine and material concern reflected in communication (e-mails). - A receiver (PLC / football club) who may be having corporate goverence issues wrt informing markets/shareholders of relevant information in a timely way. - Office bearers (e-mail recipients) who engaged with fans on such matters then didn't phone them back as apparently promised but instead issued a disengenuous statement 4 days later. I get the feeling that this threat will go the way of the others. The important thing to not lose sight of is the material of the petition and surrounding issues.
-
I used the term 'indicated' that e-mails would be sent. See the link/petition http://www.change.org/petitions/graham-wallace-give-written-legally-binding-assurances-to-fans-that-ibrox-stadium-will-not-be-sold-or-used-as-security-for-any-loans?recruiter=83833912&utm_campaign=signature_receipt&utm_medium=email&utm_source=share_petition It could be equally argued that had the signer of the petition examined content that at the very least, they would see the 'indication' and have opportunity to contemplate the possibility. Thereafter you go to 'petition precedent' regards similar. You also have to take into account that the petition has been conducted via change.org and their experience in such matters may or should help petition intiatators stay within certain guidelines/the law.
-
But it wasn't the SoS sending the e-mails. The petition would seem to have been the intiative of the SoS but thereafter it was other individuals who 'signed' the petition (that indicated that GW and SE would receive e-mails) and when those individuals clicked on 'sign' it was they who were instructing the communications be sent. The SoS whose membership is I believe two would therefore be capable of sending two e-mails to both GW and SE.
-
If we take this particular case and ask a couple of questions. Does the sender who has links to receiver as a customer/supporter/shareholder have a right to hold to account / communicate with the receiver, the PLC/club (via officebearers) and do the senders have reasonable grounds for concern that the message contained within communication is of current relevance. ??
-
They had one opportunity, and that was the board of the SPL could have voted in favour of keeping Rangers in the SPL. Note. The outcome of such a vote wasn't a given but commercial interests could well have swayed it. However the SPL board didn't want the responsibility and pushed the decision upon the member clubs. The general momentum that had built up behind what is loosely called the 'sporting integrity bandwagon' meant that this vote was only going to go one way. Thereafter the commercial interests of the SPL wrt effect/timescale took a major blow with the later decision of SFL clubs regards what division Rangers would play football in. Part of this 'major blow' is now illustrated in the OP of this thread.
-
If you supply your e-mail address maybe they can let you know !! :seal:
-
You call for perspective DB....................... Ongoing ownership of Ibrox Stadium and other main assets or "Houston (and Co.)"
-
The then SPL were in a poor negotiating position back in the day and to keep what was the existing deal in place seems to have had costs (including this pyt.). .....This would seem to be because the TV company was giving up on benefits (OF matches).
-
Thank's for the reply Frankie ! Regards 'division' between 'groups'. I think the numbers involved on one side makes this 'division' relatively unimportant and a disproportionate amount of time and energy seems to be spent on it. Regards the board meeting with VB. On the face of it, fair enough but I'd also say it fair comment that the timing, the general VB politic of supporting the custodian and the longterm tactic of various incarnations of the board to divide opposition have to be taken into account. My guess is that detail (part or whole) of said meeting will be released. That it will sound eminently sensible but will be largely empty in the same way a newspaper Q&A can be. Off the top of my head I think there is precedent with Stockbridge prior to the AGM (TBC). That said, many such meetings with other groups have resulted in a similar way. The issue at present though is obviously tangible, ie. the assets and here we have a stand-off. Whilst the 'large apolitical middle rump' are in good number voting by not renewing it does position them somewhere on the UoF side of the debate. Hence the meetings and communications that presently have more import are between the club and the 'middle rump/ UoF'. Regarding meetings in general They would seem to be of limited value because the various incarnations of the board in recent years have proved to be untrustworthy and disengenuous. The crux of the matter is the lack of trust and the ongoing unwillingness to give meaningful transparency to try and create some. Here you come back to the ST numbers and an effective vote of No-Confidence in the executive board.
-
There seems to be a polarized line in communication from the VB. ie. Some of it is considered and well written but much of it, as you refer to is 'downright bzarre'. It could perhaps point to the heid yins not being able to control or wanting to control general 'output'. I've tried to ask this before and will once more.....How many are in the VB's ? Don't need an exact number.......but is it more/less than 200, 500, whatever ?? Frankie, see my post above (55) why IMO the 'divisions' are at the moment less important than we think and why we should be concentrating more effort on more important issues.
-
Have a look at the football club. Football operation including infrastructure such as scouting network State of Ibrox stadium Management of Edmiston House etc., etc. and tell me if you see the proportional benefit of 70M ? yes or no Did this article you refer to mention the term 'onerous contracts' ?
-
The then SPL were in a poor negotiating position back in the day and to keep what was the existing deal in place seems to have had costs (including this pyt.). .....This would seem to be because the TV company was giving up on benefits (OF matches).
-
If there was such a thing as 'petition management', it might be an idea to disable any automatic e-mail generation* but accept the free publicity. I think petition numbers are currently at the level of approximate ST renewals reported around a week ago. * dependent to a degree on the wording of the communication between SoS and Levy&McRae.
-
Rather than the merits or otherwise of whatever fan group you care to mention' date=' or for that matter any bad feeling between individuals/groups ........ isn't it more important to get as close to the bottom as you can get of the motivations, MO and merits or otherwise of the actual executive board because ST numbers tell us a great deal of the support aren't happy with them ?[/b'] I think the most significant issue regards the fans at the moment is not recognized groups as such. It is the large middle rump who up until 2014 have been pretty much apolitical and just followed the team. It is within this group where there has been a change and whilst some will be fed-up with the football, the majority of them no longer have trust in the current board, the way they run the club and their longterm motivations. In other words it's a vote of no-confidence in the board from the customers of the PLC. So if this group is the most important in terms of volume, shouldn't their opinion weigh heavy when considering how to go forward. Their general concerns are close to those of the UoF and when you talk of "meaningful, constructive or informative dialogue with the board" that's all very well but what happens if communications aren't so because the board are disengenuous, misleading and fail to honour such simple things as a phonecall ? Why not forget the divisions, think of the majority of ST holders and concentrate efforts on the executive board ? ps. I've modified a previous post and Just in case you missed it or were in a rush first time round..............
-
This move from Easdale will only increase signatures on the petition. I think there has been around a hundred more in the last 10 minutes or so.
-
'Harrassment' would IMO be very difficult to make stick given circumstances. Perhaps they want to be embarrassed in court when you go through the details of why a petition/protest is necessary. Perhaps they want to say we are customers of a PLC and not 'loyal supporters' of a football club, as is their want when it suits. Good effort Craig. Keep the good fight going, the 'apolitical large middle rump' of the support don't seem to trust the board either when you look at the ST renewal estimates. This is an important development. Something from earlier