buster.
-
Posts
13,529 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
95
Everything posted by buster.
-
I would agree with that. However there are occasions when he seems to overstep the mark. eg. Not a member of the PLC board but giving a media interview in which he clearly alludes to the contents of a regulatory and commercially confidential report not yet published (business review) The crux of the matter here is that he is the front for a large block of proxy votes who seem to have been at the heart of the soap opera from the summer of 2012.
-
You'd hope that anyone standing for election/pitching for a job would not only have a good CV but would have been able to put those advertised qualities and experience to good use. You would expect such a man not to follow the 'crowd' but analyse and think that little bit harder and see through bluster, eg. Charles Green. The other notable issue is unbalanced opinion. ie. admitted personal baggage that might aswell form an opinion even before the issue exists.
-
You say the use of the word "Disingenuous" will not make future dealings with the board any easier and then suggest taping the meeting would have been a good idea .............or were you only casting doubt on the veracity of this statement ?
-
TBF to the Daily Record, back in November they were who flagged up that Scott Gardiner had refused the role because he wasn't happy with the little to no independence allowed. What you have is another difficult one to reconcile. Top dollar plus potential 100% bonus for a puppet without proportionate responsibility. Did that come in as an 'onerous contract' ?
-
Unsatisfied ?...................No, it's how I thought you'd reply. It only helps confirms what I was thinking.
-
I wrote this earlier as part of a reply to you. You didn't reply but just in case you missed it this was the first part................. So as far as I understand it, you don't seem to trust the current board but vigoursly discourage or indeed pour scorn on those who wish to analyse events/statements etc from the board of RIFC in an effort to get to the bottom of events and/or back-up what they think/post. I find it difficult to reconcile this view/style of posting/attitude. To read the whole post see post 116 on this thread. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Replying to the above post,..... you say "factionalism seems to mature in an alarming fashion" and I'd agree that are certainly disagreements but how can you infer/say to people that they should simply look the other way because you think there is nothing 'we' can do about it ? You say you don't trust the board yourself but if you want to turn the other way or as others would say 'bendover', then that is your choice....no problem. But why criticise others who want to look closely at ongoing events in light of the recent past and current situation ?.......Then turn round and talk about factionalism ? If you don't trust the board, think we can't influence matters and seem to worry about 'factionalism' (note the dreaded 'ism') would it not make more sense if instead of constantly criticising those with whom you apparently share concerns with, you said your peace and withdrew from such conversations ?
-
Thank-you for the reply DB. So as far as I understand it, you don't seem to trust the current board but vigoursly discourage or indeed pour scorn on those who wish to analyse events/statements etc from the board of RIFC in an effort to get to the bottom of events and/or back-up what they think/post. I find it difficult to reconcile this view/style of posting/attitude. I think that given circumstances it very relevant and important to establish as far as we can, if there is good reason to be able to trust the executive board at the club or not. Personally I can see no good case that says there is and even those few on here that seem willing to give the board an opportunity apparently don't trust them either (yourself & apparently Mr.Hemdani included). Nor have I seen anyone anywhere put forward a convincing case for the 'defence'. If we can agree that there isn't sufficient grounds to trust them and bearing in mind recent history.........do you not think it reasonable for fans to act/ do something about it ? And if youself and BH don't trust the board, why so consistently bat against doubts expressed of the board ? The fact that no-one has the magic formula doesn't really answer that last question. If the current board did appear to have such realistic potions, then I could better understand this line but I don't see them. As for alternatives, I think the 'onerous contracts' may complicate the situation going forward and until you find out exactly what is 'under the bonnet' it is difficult to give detail. What is IMO required are changes in the executive board that can restore a good degree of trust that strategy is in the club's longterm interests and not in best part and disproportionately in the interests of individuals/groups. I see no practical route that is free of pain but I would like a board that can be trusted to act in the clubs interests whilst we embark on a difficult journey.
-
DB, in your post quoted above, you state that you don't trust the current board. Could you tell us why ?
-
What was that you said about semantic's ?................Second line then....... He was referring to the board statement in conjunction with the use of the word 'consider' in the UoF statement.
-
He is referring to the UoF statement where the word 'consider' was used (including The Scotsman) This was the meat or important part of all reports I saw. If you don't read the statements included in the reports then it explains your confusion or willful blindness.
-
I can smell the same style of spin from parts of the Wallace twitter Q&A. Can you trust a board of a financially challanged business who pay out good money for spin so as in part to mislead the customer ?
-
Do you think it wise to be willing to give the current board an opportunity if you don't trust them and they have done little or nothing to suggest that they are deserving of such trust ?
-
Thank's for the reply. I don't want to get personal or into a slanging match. I'm only searching for motives.
-
I was told that I'd been stung by the paranoia bug (and worse) when I got on the cases of Craig Whyte, likewise when CG&Co arrived, I'm used to it. Board/shareholders/proxies - There are obvious lines of continuation between what you seem to regard as old and new/completely seperate. - The 'onerous contracts' remain in place. - You have to appreciate that the current board is another stage of an ongoing process of basically 'sucking the marrow'. - Wallace can't be onside with all interests on the board at all times.
-
Is it 'hate' of the UoF or part of the UoF that motivates and IMO blinds you ?
-
You've been 'stung' with that logic recently when Chuck spouted it. and now... 70M gone 'Onerous contracts' still in place. Bonus culture alive and well. Spin not Scout .............etc.
-
The Scotsman article contains the UoF statement where it plainly says 'consider'. Do the board think it more relevant to refer to reports rather than what was actually said at the meeting between the two parties ? I would ask to see a link where a 'report' didn't mention the paragraph of the UoF statement where if it mentioned 'consider...legally binding undertakings'. We've been here before in the Wallace twitter Q&A. Do you think the corporate goverence they mention includes a special line in 'serial misleading' ?
-
Speculating about something that didn't happen is largely irrelevant. UoF went away from the meeting and issued a statement to inform. The board at Ibrox went away from the meeting, apparently didn't get back in touch with the UoF after 'considering' and issued a statement on Saturday night that is in part, designed to mislead, How can an educated person not learn from past mistakes and not smell a rat when the board continually look to mislead, confuse and divide in their communications ?
-
You said "But I still strongly believe he did good things for us even if virtually no-one else does anymore." It was bullshit and bluster, saying what he thought would go down well. He was good at it, he fiitted the role perfectly. A more brazen liar than even Whyte, I think he actually enjoyed it at times.
-
No ban, I still post on FF. Recently there have been problems with the server and sometimes it gets to be a pain. Hopefully it'll be sorted soon. As for Green, If you remain fooled by his bluster there is little hope of you seeing through anything.
-
It's late and I made a mistake in the line about 'contradiction' which I have now edited. It now reads........What I am saying is that 4 days after the meeting, the board want to appear as though they are contradicting what the UoF said in their statement about 'cosidering the legally binding undertakings'. The Scotsman article you quote contains the UoF statement where it plainly says 'consider'. Do the board think it more relevant to refer to reports rather than what was actually said at the meeting between the two parties ?
-
Is that not a little bit rich coming from you stb ? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bit of comedy for a Saturady night I was looking back at an old thread the other day and I had a chuckle to myself when I saw you posting a comment about myself and my temerity to be 'negative' about Charles Green. It was a Leggo blog from December 2012 and my username on FF is 'buster'. http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/vb/showthread.php?51125-Leggat-UNDER-ATTACK-AND-THE-ENEMY-WITHIN&highlight=leggat This is what you posted...... "In my lurking buster doesn't come across as all that balanced right now, don't think I've seen one slightly positive comment from him about Green."
-
I guess it helped to change subject. Simple yes/no question for you BH. Can you see proportional benefit from the money spent (approx. 70M) ?
-
I'm not sure exactly why you are speculating on what might or should have been reported. What I was pointing out was simply that the UoF issued a statement where it said ""A proposal was made by Mr Wallace that whilst the board would not grant a security, they could consider giving a legally binding undertaking which would protect Ibrox from sale, sale and leaseback, or as any form of security for a loan or other finance," And that the board in their statement tonight said “Whilst the Board is reported to have offered legally binding undertakings during a fan group discussion in relation to Ibrox and Murray Park, this is not the case." What I am saying is that 4 days after the meeting, the board want to appear as though they are contradicting what the UoF said in their statement about 'considering the legally binding undertakings'. The UoF went away from that meeting waiting for a call because they had been told the legally binding undertakings were under consideration. Apparently there was no call. Tonight, the board deny reports of having offered legally binding undertakings........(What reports and from where ?) They don't deny having considered it. However the wording used is (as so much of board communications) to confuse rather than inform and gives the impression that things were resolved at the meeting and needed no futher communication. ------------------------------------------ I see a similar hand at work here as that who wrote the answer for GW on the question of 'blaming fans' in the twitter Q&A.
-
Onerous contracts, commissions, fees, bonus culture etc. Wrote this earlier..........
