Jump to content

 

 

buster.

 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    13,520

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    95

 Content Type 

Everything posted by buster.

  1. buster.
    He lied on the credit card question. (see post 26) He isn't even very good at lying or covering tracks.
  2. buster.
    how can you justify a bonus that your reported receiving? You didn't answer the question Graham.
  3. buster.
    It's the 18th Graham, or at least the official site has it down as such
  4. buster.
    Someone can takeover, gotta go !!
  5. buster.
    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"
  6. buster.
    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 !
  7. buster.
    Are there plans to fix up Ibrox eg. Toilets, pitch & catering which are becoming tired and/or poorly staffed? Timescale ?
  8. buster.
    Naw yer naw,................... you appointed a spin-doctor to help keep you insulated.
  9. buster.
    Q: Do you have any plans to improve the scouting system? However, quality scouting isn't quite as important as spin and we will continue to talk about it but do nothing.
  10. buster.
    Q: why release Andy little? But keep cribari,simonsen etc? https://twitter.com/RFC_Official
  11. buster.
    Heard almost exactly the same line from Green. It's on youtube somewhere.
  12. buster.
    Why did it take you 150 days to realise we needed scouting infrastruture and then promptly appoint a spin-doctor ? If you did realise earlier why didn't you act on it immediately given time it takes to put in place. How do you square SPFL Champions in 3 years with this lack of timely action in what you state to be an area of great importance. Re. priorities: Why Spin instead of scouting ?................ (length more twitter friendly)
  13. buster.
    Green's 10M warchest will surely have increased with interest........add the Blue Pitch 50M and it'll be CL quarter finals !!
  14. buster.
    Is that the blog that talked about the 80M offers for McGills that were later found to be hogwash as other companies came out to categorically state no such bids had been made. It's no surprise that a Super Abundance Preacher/mini-PR consultant/Blogger is comfortable talking about such sums of money.
  15. buster.
    The QC representing Rangers made a point of saying that the institutional investors weren't providing an 'undertaking' as such.
  16. buster.
    He has been kept away or has shied away from independent media questioning other than the presentation of the business review, when he first arrived and newspaper article Q&A's. He has used mainly RTV, which obviously don't have on their books a Jeremy Paxman type.
  17. buster.
    May or June ?
  18. buster.
    What I would say is that any bonus paid should have proportional and recognizable value for the club. That is to say that any contract that contains a bonus clause should clearly state what tangible targets or similar would trigger such a bonus. In the case of Graham Wallace and the 100% bonus we now know that this isn't the case and this IMO is what makes it particularly damaging to the credibility of the individual, the board and the finances of the club. Added to that is the way we have found out, with the club having to be forced by legal means. It only makes you wonder what else is under the bonnet.
  19. buster.
    No problemz ! Firstly I should point out that I had actually agreed with you regarding this specific article on Somers, in that I thought there wasn't proportional material to justify the general tone and language of the piece, (see post 66 above). However, your post on the matter spun your slant on events and passed it off as fact. An example,............."What the press does is splash this rather obvious info with a nice negative stuff into our faces on a daily level". Much of the "info" isn't "obvious" and has only been revealed because the board were forced into doing so by the law/regulations. Because the info wasn't obvious, it is news and has a public interest value that also sells newspapers. As for slants, it's difficult to come accross completely objective reporting or messageboard posts, they are rare beasts. If you filter for facts or reasonable assumptions then in this case you look at the "info" provided and take from it what you will. To say it was "obvious" is to go to the heart of what is actually of value within the report and poo poo it or it's significance. Finally and generally, I'd say that the most dangerous or potentially damaging spin is that which is more difficult to detect. Especially that, that attempts to introduce mind-sets on certain ongoing issues (worth a thread on it's own one day). This I feel has been of particular damage to the Rangers support over a long period of time and partly why we have not played a more active role in ongoing events over the past few years.
  20. buster.
    Is it not hypocritical to complain of spin and then use it in the same post ?
  21. buster.
    So you are saying that if TRFC (club) were sold with a signed X year lease on Ibrox, the club could rid themselves of said lease via an insolvency event ? There would be a real risk that an insolvency event together with leaving Ibrox would mean a large number of fans not coming back. But that would by hypothesing on hypotheticals !! If we accept that there are various ways for those calling the shots to skin a cat, that those who are in and around the executive board are in it for financial reasons, are experts in corporate 'fleecings', don't see a football club with 'emotion' and that they have given us good reason not to trust them..............................there is very good reason to be concerned. Solutions This is where it gets difficult and you start to worry about the future. Going back to those in and around the executive board (taking into account what I wrote in previous paragraph) then I'd imagine they'll very much have their claws into the business. In that they will have contingency plans for the various angles of attack that they might come under and none will end well, especially in the short-term. Obviously there is one easy route but it would appear that the price being asked for a controlling stake may be prohibitive, way above market value. The here and now is that if no-one is prepared to pay it then it can be discounted. I'm afraid I can only see pain ahead. The status quo is being sold by some as the 'safe or loyal route' but to me it is the road to footballing obscurity, constant uncertainty and an eventual 'bumpy end' with the pieces being picked up by supporters.
  22. buster.
    I'd agree that this article wants to push a particular message without having proportional material at hand, it's 'The Sun'. I do however think the facts within are worthy of knowing in that they help along with other information, to form a picture of how this board operate.
  23. buster.
    At this point in time, I can understand that. However in an uncertain future, I think it something that we must bear in mind. More especially given the recent past and current direction at executive level. We have found to our cost that we cannot trust those in charge and their goal is to maximise their (and shareholder) returns. Not forgetting their duties as directors to RIFC PLC. If one day in the uncertain future TRFC were to exchange assets for debt in an internal asset transfer, would that change the panorama ? Thereafter TRFC could be sold (if approved by shareholders/ note potentially increased stakes if more shares are offered to current shareholders). I suppose if this or similar was a route that is being mapped out it might need the contingent liability lifted first but I'm not sure.
  24. buster.
    Don't need to a photoshop genius to want a 'bash' at Eva !
  25. buster.
    I'm sure at least 30p will go to Rangers. Rangers Retail (51%) and Sports Direct (49%)..............The partnership that at face value RR seem to have control but dig a little and you find in a vote that the SD shares count double. Therefore on votes on matters financial SD have control. An "onerous contract" ?
×
×
  • 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.