Jump to content

 

 

buster.

  • Posts

    13,511
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    95

Everything posted by buster.

  1. Arithmetic: Important Trust: There is none Credit: Not available ......................( Trust issue but at a different level) Pain: Inevitable
  2. You paint a picture of an honest and trustworthy board striving tirelessly to do their best for the club and that the only option for the humble supporter is to buy ST's and give our money to this noble executive board and trust them to what is right for our club. Perhaps I'm over-egging the pudding a little but only with a similar poetic licence. It's a horrible situation and part of the reason we are faced with it is because too many were fooled by Charles Green and argued that we had to fund the club that we loved. Where is that money (and the rest) today. We were told Green&Co have shares and will do their very best for the club because that it is obviously in their interests. Green was soon to go, bringing the Easdales in take his place in front of BPH and Margarita. The crux of our problem is that today we can't trust those in and around the boardroom. They are in it for the money and will spin rather than scout their way towards it, mislead rather than be up-front, lie instead of tell the truth, take 120 days instead of 30 etc., etc.......................It will be a slow fading away as life and money is sucked out of the club. IMO we need to do what is necessary to change what is becoming a Coventry/Leeds Utd dynamic, even if it means acute short-term pain. In an ideal world we buy a controlling stake but reallity is that no-one is willing to pay a prohibitive price and then invest in the club itself.
  3. I was thinking along the lines of Motherwell, Rangers then Scotland.
  4. I think most are supporters first and investors second but everyone is free to their opinion. I write that thinking in the longterm health and growth of the club.
  5. TBF Strachan has done a good job this far in, considering. ps. I don't think it is any accident that Stuart McCall is in his staff given the way Scotland are set-up. Scotland manager of the future IMO.
  6. Fletcher needs as much gametime as he can get before the qualifiers start. Neither can it be all fringe players given that the 'experiment' will be geared towards a starting XI in September and there won't be many more opportunities to do so.
  7. We are a football club owned by a PLC whose priority is to make money. Mr.Green with BPH and Margarita behind him played the 'it's in all our interests line that the club get back to the top' and we can see where that got us. We are now in another stage of a process. Same motivation but a slightly different Modus Operandi for another set of circumstances.
  8. An important issue is Trust and that goes for the board as a whole and major unidentified backers (since 2012). The current board continually give us good reason not to trust them, just like the incarnations of executive control that went before them. To describe what in another man's lexicon may be considered 'reasonable vigilance given recent history and those still involved'................ ................... as "a segment of the fanbase that will continue to stir up stuff no matter what Wallace says or does" is disengenuous. Instead, why not tell us why you think we should trust him and the board.
  9. I don't think Strachan's way of setting-up has a place for Rhodes style. I reckon Naismith is the best fit and that he is now above S.Fletcher in the pecking order.
  10. Forwards 74 caps and 7 goals. Not good enough although Naismith is starting to make the role his. We'll see what he can do over the qualifying campaign. ps. well done to Cammy Bell although he might prefer just to go on holiday.
  11. Perhaps that is because you find it difficut to defend or/and make a positive case for the board. The almost continual 'unhappy' forum traffic that recent years up right up until today has generated is inevitable. If you want to begin on a road to try and revert 'forum traffic' to mostly football matters, I think we have to go to the root of the problem and get our hands dirty.
  12. DerBerliner Posters can choose to debate the OP or not. When you say "same arguments", I've yet to hear a convincing one in favour of GW, perhaps you could provide one. When you talk about coming back after X months to see if concerns were valid, I'd reply that maybe for once it is time to act upon those concerns and I'd point to the majority of the support presently either having decided to act or considering their position. We have the scars from previous inaction and a further cost is the current crossroads that provides options with varying degrees and timescales of pain.
  13. That response illustrates perfectly where the weight in this particular argument lys. How do you think contract negotiations went and led to said non-specific 100% bonus ?
  14. What I think we can take from this is that the actions of the main fans groups alongside KIng has helped spark an awakening within the general support with the main gripe being an unhappiness with executive control from the board in areas such as finances, a lack of transpareny and ensuing lack of trust etc. We now come to a point where we realise that there is no easy route out of this,...........only pain in whichever direction we turn. Everyone will make-up their own mind,................. I can't stomach a future of having to bendover to people who can't be trusted, won't be transparent aswell as Laxey who will have their eyes on Ibrox and continue the reputation of hedge funds involved in football clubs. I agree with Tannoch that it'll be down to the fans to make the continual drive towards a better place and IMO that has to start at this particular crossroads.
  15. It would tie-in beautifully with that of the board and the current football operation. ie. help keep an omnishambes in place.
  16. The very first act of Graham Wallace on November 19th 2013 was to sign a contract that contained a bonus clause of 100%. What is wrong with that ? Apart from the amount of money involved, the criteria for triggering said bonus was unspecific and open to abuse. Had it been related to specific's that improved the club's numbers in a way that would be able to pay for it then it could less controversial.
  17. The support's main tool of leverage and a very strong one. We don't realise because we've never looked to use it before. The board have said they could weather the cashflow storm and therafter they would be (including the football operation) more accountable.
  18. A general point on the subject of ex-players returning. It harks a little bit like a swan-song that keeps us locked in the past and doesn't go as planned.
  19. Not at all. Better to debate matters and this was what I was looking for. I apoligize if you took my reply as being flippant, it was intended as an even response to your initial post with a little bit of humor thrown in.
  20. "Honest" is a word the board wouldn't know the meaning off but the first thing it might do is oblige the need for a regulatory notice/warning to the markets regards projected numbers. The point being is that they will only be seen to act when they are forced to.
  21. Perhap's one should expand with some detail for that day in the future when you open the thread again. Did it take you 120 minutes (plus eight to type it) to come up wth that reply ?
  22. See posts above in conjunction with link below.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.