buster.

''The news I am hearing is very healthy levels of renewal and a projected overall uptake in the high 30Ks.''

 

http://billmcmurdo.wordpress.com/blog-2/

 

From Bill's blog................

It is a landmark day when an ex-player of such a giant stature as Mark Hateley has come out and urged fans to back the club.

Having read the comments of MH, to say Bill is over-egging the pudding would be generous.

Btw, isn't Mark employed or retained by the club ?

http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/6956-hateley-early-deals-key

“I think it’s important that we invest in that through season tickets as a way to reward Alistair because the quicker we can do that, the quicker he can get among it and get better players.

“Investment in to the club is always vitally important and investing in the team and in players works hand in hand.

“The quicker it comes for Alistair the bigger the scope he has to go out and get the better players so hopefully that will all come through and we’ll have another season to celebrate.”

 

MH

Thus far the ST marketing drive has certainly been low-key this year.

I am attending tonight, about to leave deepest, darkest Lanarkshire for sun drenched Renfrewshire.

 

This is the third time I have attended a Rangers/Hearts Youth Cup final. The previous two were cracking games, unfortunately Hearts won both. A 1-3 defeat at Ibrox with a 16 year old Charlie Miller in the team 21 years past and a 2-3 loss at Hampden a dozen years ago. Will Hearts complete the hat-trick this evening?

 

See fitba, see the frisson of excitement.

Sounds as if they come around about once a decade, the same frequency as decent European runs.

I've heard this claim numerous times both on and offline. I think if it was true it would have been in the papers but I've not been able to provide evidence to prove it false (neither have those making the claim have had evidence to back it up).

 

Has anyone traced the actual source of the rumour? And could anyone provide some links (that I can circulate) to shoot it down once and for all?

It's a little ironic that some seem to worry more about unsubstantiated claims of someone taking back part of what he put in rather than huge sums money of club income/IPO cash actually going out of the door without apparent and proportionate return.

Fair points.

 

While it's fair to say that Budge's intentions are not yet completely clear, she and her team seem to be willing to deal directly with fans and the media. Meanwhile our board hide from such open debate on a regular basis.

 

Of course such debate that doesn't necessarily mean transparency and honesty (see Charles Green) but it would go a long way to reducing suspicions.

 

 

As it stands we remain at an impasse. You'd think something has to break the surface tension this week.

The fundamantal motivations at executive board level at the two clubs are different and from this, trickles down MO, behaviour, type of fan engagement, etc, etc.

The other day I mentioned the term " a perfect storm" (after 40 months of rain) regards all-encompassing and ongoing matters at Ibrox.

Today the term may be "the (uneasy) calm before the storm" regards the current impasse.

Wholeheartedly agree PB, i said it was like looking at a Lion kill, the top predators have eat their fill, then left it to the scavengers, they are now picking at the bones.

Broadly speaking, yes and all the better if they can put some meat back on the bone.

One for you, two for us, one for you, two for us................(arithmetic is imprecise)

Keep it going and squeeze until another stage comes to an end.

All the time we continue to fade away.

I think the big difference is that Hearts were a crippled beast which the wolves let go when they had to run away.

Rangers was a wounded animal thrown, trussed, bound and defenseless to the waiting wolves.

Agreed and it leads into / ties in with my first post on this thread.

Wrote the following on another thread.........

(Sharks for Wolves)

A long drawn out process has various stages (see Coventry/Leeds) with executive control that doesn't prioritize the club's longterm interests (eg. hedge funds).

 

I don't think there has been a clean break between the Green&Co 'loads of cash in & loads of cash out' stage and the current stage of 'picking up the pieces/milk if/where possible/eventually position assets'...................bla bla

 

...........When the corporate sharks get a hold of a distressed business, the norm is that they squeeze out all the value they can and it takes time, going through different stages. They fight tooth and nail to retain control.

Permit me a small bit-part illustration.

Ann Budge / Day One

Talks of the future based on academy/ good scouting system and appoints chief scout.

Graham Wallace / Day One

Signs a contract with a 100% bonus clause based on 'foggy criteria'.

GW / Day 156

Talks of the future based on academy/ good scouting system and appoints spin-doctor*

I think it very revealing that the current board prioritize spin and that it goes to the heart of the matter...........

No meaningful transparency or sufficient truth that in turn leads to No trust.

* Tyrell was actually appointed a few days earlier.

There are two important differences between executive board control of Hearts and that of Rangers.

One has the longterm interests of the football club very much at heart and as a priority,...........................the other doesn't.

One is deserving of Trust,......................the other isn't.

If the Union of Fans doesn't hit 5,000, it will be perceived to have failed, however its campaign has been difficult to ignore and people who previously never bothered with Ibrox politics have effectively been forced to think about issues that usually pass them by.

 

Renewals seem to be at a very low level, and the King campaign could be a factor in this by raising awareness about the way the club is run. Even though people might not be attracted to the King scheme, they are more aware than ever that Rangers is not in safe hands.

 

People don't like to be taken for mugs, and many now feel that handing over £400 or more for a season ticket to a board that has little respect and even less trust is an unwise way to proceed.

Whether the arithmetic reaches 5,000 or not, I think the most important aspect of the UoF's influence, at this point in time has been to make thousands of fans think about the whole shooting match. To take a step backwards, see that you can't Trust the current board and question the logic of handing them up-front money to take control of.

That is to say, for a fan to be in the 'middle group', they've taken an important step away from the conventional.

This is huge in that we are talking about the 'rump' of the support, the supposed middle ground that were largely onside with the club and/or simply not interested in the politics.

The biggest single reason for this IMO is TRUST, or rather the lack of.

Over an increasingly long period of time Trust has been eroded and the word 'scunnered' comes into play.

For some within this middle ground 'scunnered' includes the football on the park.

IMO......... Trust (or lack of) is the basedriver for the arithmetic.

Well, I for one have already conceded that I was taken in by CG at least until the tapes were revealed. But the point you are missing, if I may say with all due respect, is that that is history and so to some extent is the reason why the Easdales are involved.

.

Going to be restricted today regardstime so will answer your post in parts.

A long drawn out process has various stages (see Coventry/Leeds) with executive control that doesn't prioritize the club's longterm interests (eg. hedge funds).

I don't think there has been a clean break between the Green&Co 'loads of cash in & loads of cash out' stage and the current stage of 'picking up the pieces/milk if/where possible/eventually position assets'.

Green may or may not be history but let us say he has no input whatsoever regards Blue Pitch and Margarita,........who does ? why still in the dark ? why still there ?

You mention the Easdales, they were in part 'groomed' as next to take over the 'frontseat' for those in the background.

They were given the Mediahouse staged intro in the springtime of 2013 just as you were starting to realise that Charles Green wasn't what he had said he was. He must have shouted fairly loud for learned fans to ignore the what seemed like obvious signs that savvy business people might have reasonably been expected to at least question, this in turn leading to reasonable doubt.

When the corporate sharks get a hold of a distressed business, the norm is that they squeeze out all the value they can and it takes time, going through different stages. They fight tooth and nail to retain control.

This is where we are and for the sharks to relinquish executive control in a straightforward manner (ie. via the sale of a controlling stake) shares will be set at a prohibitive price that represents what they think they can make out of the business going forward.

Arithmetic: Important

Trust: There is none

Credit: Not available ......................( Trust issue but at a different level)

Pain: Inevitable

The current Board will not be "starved out", withholding ST money or paying game by game will make their job more difficult but they are committed to the work in hand and they will be there so long as the current group of investors are in place.

 

So Jackson is right and of course King knows it full well. The only way to get the current Board out (if that is what you want to do) is to buy out the investors. Since King has said he won't do that; he may as well say, the game's a bogy; buy your ST's directly and support the Club you love.

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.

Or Rangers?

 

Hope Wallace gets back in for the campaign but probably needs rest right now.

I was thinking along the lines of Motherwell, Rangers then Scotland.

Getting back to the top in 3 consecutive promotions would increase the revenue to a very comfortable level and would allow the club to not be held hostage by a malcontent former director that has to this date, refused to put one $$ into the club. Heck, I am not a millionaire and I have put money in the club. I am also not a hedge fund or affiliated with Green and his cronies. Is it selfish to want the club to be successful and to see that my investment at least retains it value? I am just not too hip with the idea of creating destabilization in order to drive the share price low because that affects fans like me more than it does these other characters.

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.

My point was more i don't believe either are good enough. Chesney obviously does.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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.

Experimental friendly. Fletcher and Brown making it is a joke though.

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.

Why should King's company be the one that gets the security? What happens if, say, the VBs and RM set up a company as well and they asked for security to be given to their company instead?

 

Should it go to the company that has more season ticket holders as shareholders and/or directors? :devil:

You are a bad man

We're a football club there is nothing bigger than getting back to the top

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.

what would be a shame is if this "starving out" the Board affects our ability to be active in the transfer market with strengthening the team. If it happens and we fail to get promoted, will the fans blame themselves?

There are bigger things in play regarding the longterm future of the club.

I am willing to give him 6 more months. He inherited an absolute financial mess and I believe that the previous Director gambled (arrogantly and stupidily) that we would be back in the Top division before now. That being said, there is a segment of the fanbase that will continue to stir up stuff no matter what Wallace says or does so he just needs to concentrate on having a plan and executing it.

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.

Four keepers in the squad, what's the thinking there? That's as weak a forward selection as I've seen. What happened to Johnnie Russell and Jordan Rhodes and how come Snodgrass doesn't get in the squad?

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.

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.

See, I have no problem with people having a certain stance against the board. There is hardly a point debating the same topic time and a gain though, not on a weekly, but daily basis. I'm not saying I like what happens or happened ... just in case someone was in doubt about that. But I see likewise no point in trying to draw and quarter the same arguments time and again, from a one ° - different angle than 24 hours earlier.

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.

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.