buster.
-
Posts
13,546 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
95
Everything posted by buster.
-
What ? The figure that 4 independent experts came up with for what GW merits for his bonus. This was done after spending 120 days painstaking days trying to interpretate his contract then numbercrunching. ps, joke
-
There will be an attempt to use any new membership scheme to try and marginalise those other groups who don't tow the partyline and have become 'awkward'....(It will also look to control and manage communication with the fans). I don't know about headcount and numbers involved but if not too high, they may have considered writing them off, so to speak. Thinking a fair percentage would drift back but as individuals.
-
It's ironic that Mr.Hunt is talking about spin when we are simply reading what was said in the business review and comparing it to what was said today. If Mr.Wallace hadn't made the revisionist change in such an important part of the answer to one of the few probing questions then you wouldn't have needed to come on and tell us to stop nit-picking.
-
Why not just say what you alude to ? The business review refers to fans, unless they are now regarded by the club as 'non-fans'. In court on Tuesday, the QC who took instruction from Rangers said something that was perhaps revealing or perhaps not. Alasdair Lamont @BBCAlLamont 6 de may. Mr Summers QC says Rangers wish Union of Fans would "go away to allow the club to move on". Today GW today said that fans were not blamed in the business review and revised the text to suit this line.
-
If you were working in some kind of advisory capacity in the material you'd have been given your P45 and not asked back for a similar gig. As it is, we are only messageboard posters but when one shouts so loud and often it is better to do so with a decent track record.
-
Aye right, forget the words............next it'll be the pounds
-
Well documented on FF. This is why I mentioned it in the first place. Nearly all those standing 'unconditionally' with the current board are the same who were shouting beside the likes of Green. Their credibility on such judgement calls is effected. Many did make the mistake and got carried along with the wave but you are someone who I would have thought savvy enough to see through the bluster, apparently not. It is relevant in that you might want to err on the side of caution or not be so generous with the benefit of the doubt.
-
No, he deliberately tried to mislead/revise. If that isn't the case, we have an idiot on 315K plus 100% bonus.
-
"in some quarters".............. is the phrase you want to examine. Put the shovel away BH
-
You didn't with Mr.Green either.
-
You can only polish a t**d for so long.
-
We've seen similar movies before, they end badly. No meaningful transparency Deliberate misleading Large Bonus percentages with no clear and justifiable triggers (even on contract) Lies Talk about scouting and appoint spin-doctors. Unrealistic targets with insufficient detail on how they will be attained (despite having 150 days to think of them) etc etc No, they're taking the p**h.
-
Firstly ask Graham why the word "media" wasn't specified in the actual business review but chose to use the term today and in so doing was inaccurate and revisionist. It was and is very clear who and whom are referred to with the phrase "in some quarters". If you choose not to see that, it says more about your position (built on sand) than anything else.
-
You could buy an 'Action Man', load it with corporate non-answers and ask the man on RTV to ask questions then pull the neck chord. You can tell it's his first gig as a CEO. Out of his depth but happy swimming in a pool of ten pound notes.
-
He cares about it 100% !!
-
Wallace just said "media" The business review didn't mention "media" Business Review The Board believes that one of the major factors influencing the merchant acquirer to change its terms was the extensive negative coverage of calls in some quarters for supporters to refrain or delay purchasing season tickets. GW in Q&A Just to be clear, fans were not blamed for the withdrawl of the credit card facility. The review said that negative comment in the media was a factor in the Club's credit card provider seeking security over Ibrox. He is playing on words and isn't even very good at it, nor does it have plausible deniability.
-
I wrote the following on another thread earlier.... ie. A lack of transparency within his contract at a time when it was and is vital.
-
He lied on the credit card question. (see post 26) He isn't even very good at lying or covering tracks.
-
how can you justify a bonus that your reported receiving? You didn't answer the question Graham.
-
It's the 18th Graham, or at least the official site has it down as such
-
Someone can takeover, gotta go !!
-
is blaming fans for credit card issues "working hard to gain their trust" Graham???. Answer REAL questions! Interesting question Liar, in part it was said/inferred that they were. Review said.......... I'm struggling to see the word "media"
-
How difficult is your job in the face of constant negative press & misinformation spread in the media? Nicely selected question. It's now all ok lads !
-
Are there plans to fix up Ibrox eg. Toilets, pitch & catering which are becoming tired and/or poorly staffed? Timescale ?
-
Naw yer naw,................... you appointed a spin-doctor to help keep you insulated.
