buster.

That type of comment is completely unsurprising and exactly the sort of rhetoric we've come to expect from this Rangers boardroom and their outside PR department/s.

For transparency during 'crisis-management' the club appoint a spin-doctor (ie. professional misleaders or masseurs of the truth).

Does this inspire confidence in the business review ..............or anything else they do or say ?

Could GW, the man of 100% bonus territory not have it within his CV to communicate effectively without someone holding his hand ?

A business review that aspires to be SPFL Champions within 3 seasons and delivered by a CEO who needs 150 days to realise we need a scouting system but prioritises a spin-doctor.

Found this on FF

 

Easdale buying more shares

A LSE announcement tonight at 6.18pm shows that Easdale bought another 57,043 shares at 23p a share

As per the call from (IIRC) Forlan yesterday.

that's the sad thing if they worked with the uof fans we could have record numbers.

Ask yourself why they won't genuinely engage.

Engagement and Communication is fine if on their terms and you are prepared not to be what they might judge as 'awkward' or ask pertinent questions.

Any initiatives from this board (including membership schemes) will look to control dialogue and marginalise 'troublesome' supporters groups.

There is no question that a number of those who have been involved with the Club at director level in recent years have only been in it for themselves but it is equally true that a large number of "Rangers men" have had the opportunity to support the club they hold dear and have not done so.

 

Regrettably the days when it was an honour and a privilege to be a director of Rangers (as indeed a player) are long gone.

 

I would like to think that those days will return but I am not confident.

I don't think it has been quite as simple as that. Unless individuals were willing to spend disproportionate levels of money just to get in the door/ hold real influence or control.

Then you have to realise what you are taking on. The expectation levels allied to the available income streams and location (SPFL) mean that it is a difficult juggling act that can have millions thrown at it but still fail.

All in all I agree with you that for various reasons we are going through what is a 'long-running before and after event'.

The club is a shambles at all levels playing in a league without a sponser.

A positive might be that you'd think it could only get better but I'm afraid that isn't necessarily the case.

ps. I now realise who you are thank's to other forums on Gersnet.

It'll be interesting to see how the board and their new PR man handle these statements from TBO & UB or if they'll just ignore them.

This is what was said in court by the QC after taking instruction from Rangers the other day.

Alasdair Lamont ‏@BBCAlLamont 4 min

Mr Summers QC says Rangers wish Union of Fans would "go away to allow the club to move on".

Neil Murray was nothing more than an old pals act was happy enough for him to go.

 

Rightly or wrongly Wallace asked for a grace period to review everything and I accepted that, since I don't believe we should be signing many players this summer I think it can be given some time for him to implement these plans.

Don't you think that after you showed such patience in the past only for it to be 'abused' that more timely criticism/action may be in order this time ?

Solidarity is required.

One man makes no difference.

Thousands who stand together can make a difference and force change/influence events.

and in that year they have done nothing or made things far far worse. which is quite something given greens fuck ups.

 

of course many rightly realize that this board are just a new front for the same people.

I think there is a mixture of the same old, eg. Easdale proxies........ with some new or increased (influence) old, eg.Laxey.

Some of the old have sold-up and departed.

Should we be grateful it only took them a year to notice we have no chief scout or scouting system worthy of the name?

In the corporate guidebook on how to run a football club it states that it may take up to 120 days before a man with a good CV notices and acts on the lack of scouting.

If the CV is only standard it goes up to 150 days.

A useful tool for any PR man for when the chairman is criticised by whoever. Has Wallace bought shares?

Re. GW/shares.

I can't recall any annoucements to that effect.

StB, what use would a chief scout be if he's appointed in August, just as the window shuts?

 

Surely you'd agree that on discovering we didn't have anything while doing their review, Mssrs Somers and Wallace could have put the case that getting someone in position immediately - and I mean that week, or the next at the latest - would allow said scout to liase with McCoist as to what he wanted, get out and about before this season ends, build a database and so on.

 

If no-one is in place before next season? That's already too late!

Spin department is far more important.

Appointment of Paul Tyrell

Priorities often explain MO.

Besides GW only gets 315K basic and (very probable) 100% bonus,.... so you can't expect him to be able to engage and communicate effectively without layers of professional and expensive spin attached.

The very one.

Perhaps only part of an 'electioneering campaign' for the AGM and Mr.Somers didn't really mean it.

On a different note, did someone say that after 6 months Mr.Somers had suddenly decided to buy shares this week !!

IPO brought in £22,000,000. Seven months later the financial director couldn't tell supporters what was left, but the very next day he told the Sun newspaper it was all gone. From there the club's been posting losses and spending more than it brings in each month.

 

Simple arithmetics is more apt.

Was that the FD that the chairman, Mr.Somers couldn't praise highly enough ?

Credit card facilities

Sandy Easdale on the doorstep

Going concern warning from 120 day review (timescale of review a sham and neatly brings us to ST renewal time)

Contents of review feel more like 120 hours of work.

Widespread and increasing unhappiness amongst fans (revenue stream) that the board do not meaningfully address but instead hire a PR consultant whilst talking about scouting and winning SPFL1 within 3 years.

GW appointed and share price was just under 42p.

Day that business review was published it was 21p.

ie. if you bought at 21p you'd need a 100% increase in SP to get back to the November price.

Maybe Graham got his 100%'s mixed up !!

I could go on and on...............

Or facts.

 

The business needs up front income

And if you don't trust those with executive control on the subsequent allocation of resources ?

Besides Rangers have said in court this week that whilst ST revenue is important that they have other ways of financing the shortfall and will be able to continue trading.

This of course after a going concern warning re. ST monies and the Sandy Easdale doorstep interview .

Confusing and contradictory messages.......

It's bound to have an effect irrespective of how spurious the claim is.

I referred more specifically to what may be termed an 'endgame' or similar involving the transfer or sale of assets.

I remain to be convinced that they can actually achieve the level of cuts necessary without harming the income stream that particular ship sailed some time ago.

I'd agree with that but I'd like to hear their pitch to institutional investors.

There were apparently some interesting exchanges in the court case on Tuesday which I might touch on later.

Do you think that the contingent liability may be getting in their way ?

Alasdair Lamont ‏@BBCAlLamont 20m

Having bought 35,000 Rangers shares yesterday, chairman David Somers buys another 12,000 today. Meanwhile share price is creeping back up.

Is this a 'delayed rebound' on shareprice ?

At court on tuesday...........

Alasdair Lamont ‏@BBCAlLamont 2 min

Affidavit from Peter Shea of Nomad Daniel Stewart includes the line: "The share price has rebounded quite satisfactorily." Not sure abt that

Curious figures to be "satisfactory"

 

GW arrival............... 42p

Day of Review.........21p

 

Has "rebounded" to 22p

Some investors may well come out stronger (which may not be as bad as it sounds) however even if they did go ahead with a rights issue for the 43m shares all that would achieve is a few more months grace before the excrement would once again collide with a rotating cooling device.

Or they could hope to implement austerity to the nth degree (apart from boardroom renumerations, any 100% bonus and spin dept.).

The ongoing forseeable future ?

Expect/hope for 40,000 to pay and watch a Stuart McCall type in charge of a provincial budget, in an 'ambitious effort' to finish second.

There's a large chunk of the support who think that the proposed actions will just have no impact. I wouldn't say that they fall into any of your three categories but I guess some may categorise them as naïve but that would be an arrogant attitude, shown by those who think that they know better than others.

I don't know if by "proposed actions" you mean 1872 Ltd. but I was looking at it from the angle of the supporter who doesn't think he can trust those that have executive control or the main shareholders behind them. Then deciding not to pay his money up-front but rather make game-by-game decisions, based on criteria that he sees fit.

A 'mind-set' that seems to be pushed is along the lines of "you'll make no difference".

Alone he or she wouldn't make a substantial difference but add up thousands of like-minded individuals and they would have the potential to make a material impact.

This brings me back to the longterm "Confuse & Divide" campaign that was sown and is nutured by those who want to best control the 'Blue Pound'.

I would agree that there is a degree of arrogance in my previous post but it is borne of closely watching ongoing events in and around Ibrox in recent years, very much including how the spin-doctors have pushed to develop mind-sets within the support, confuse & divide and it's effects over time. Without blowing trumpets, it is relevant to say I called both CW and CG&Co out as they walked in the door.

But TBO aren't proposing empty seats. As I said above, if you do have doubts that the cash will be spent in the best interests of the club then you don't go.

 

Yes, paying week to week does give you a flexibility, but I doubt that it's going to change the board's attitude. That's my major area of difference. if I felt it would make a difference than I'd consider it, but I don't.

 

Ah, the insults. So which do I fall into?

Flexibility gives you power.

If many (not restricted toTBO) are Flexible it gives the board food for thought before taking decisions, ie. a degree of accountability.

My opinion, not an insult.

The three categories are IMO a fair representation of many of our fans when it comes to boardroom matters at Ibrox in recent years.

- I'd say that the 'complicit' are a very very small band and most of them will have a degree of naivity thrown-in.

- The 'don't care' are those who simply want to watch the football and aren't interested in anything else.

- The'naive' are a large group and it's understandable given complexities and heavy duty spin over years. They also include a fair amount of 'experts' whose previous experience didn't include a section on corporate vultures and their methods allied to a longterm spin campaign against the support to make 'control' easier. The positive is that this group is reducing in number as time goes by.

Fair enough, but it seems a bit like cutting off your nose....

 

You can still protest at the games which is a lot more symbolic and many won't be aware that you haven't renewed.

It's more about potentially cutting off a money supply that you have reasonable doubt will all be spent in the longterm interests of the club.

(Potential) Protests that the board 'understand' will be unpaid empty seats..............hence a degree of ongoing accountibility.

Throw it at them in one go and you are powerless and IMO after recent times, rather naive, complicit or don't care.

Has to be the manager, he was given all the tools and some to do the job and has made a complete Noël Hunt of it. He has been backed and supported in almost every way possible.

 

Ultimate responsibility lys in the boardroom, not with Ally McCoist.

I agree that our football operation is a shambles and that those in positions of responsibility within should have been moved on a while ago (that includes AMcC and coaching team aswell as J.Sinclair). Those decisions haven't been taken and the wisdom of that lys at the door of the boardroom.

Some who support the current board agree that McCoist et al have been found wanting.

How do they square those points of view ?

If they are continuing to attend all the matches, what's the point?

Perhaps a lack of trust and the want of a tool that pushes ongoing accountability.

Up-front money to people you have no good reason to trust would be crazy.

Besides the board (this week in court) have said they have other ways of funding the cashflow throughout the summer.