buster.
-
Posts
13,511 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
95
Everything posted by buster.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 ?
-
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.
-
I doubt that anything that is not pertinent to the matter at hand will be publicly disclosed. The club will push this and claim other parts of said contract are not relevant, including commercially sensitive information that could financially damage the 'defender'.............or thereabouts.
-
Not necessarily. That case is more about the contract between Ahmad and the club/company.
-
Former player invited to join board of Rangers...
buster. replied to Frankie's topic in Rangers Chat
Read the thread title and thought for a moment that Barry Ferguson was coming back as Chairman. -
I don't know how the deal was set-up. They (Green, BS & Ahmad) weren't forthcoming when asked about detail even by other members of the same board. They (SD/Ashely) have the over-riding and ongoing control of the business.
-
Sports Direct (Ashely) comes to mind. They have a venture alongside Rangers Retail, the later have 51% of the share BUT in votes on financial matters, the 49% of SD outweighs the 51% of Rangers Retail because of the how the deal was set-up. Why would that be ?
-
Blue Pitch and Margarita are now fronted by Sandy Easdale instead of Charles Green.
-
Our subservience and financing to and for the boardroom has allowed events to reach this stage. We've now reached a stage where there is only pain to come. Broadly the same people who pushed us in the past are recommending that we continue the subservience and finance to executive control. Up front finance to people who have proved they can't be trusted is crazy.....besides the board have now said (in court this week) that they don't need the money up-front.
-
I'd broadly agree but who has ultimate responsibility ?
-
As one stage in the process came to an end and another began you obviously needed to maintain executive control for broad continuum. Hashtag: bone marrow sucking, cashcow, Leeds Utd, etc.
-
It helps divert focus from where it should be. Whilst it is only fair and right to examine all sides, the past and current boards seem to escape such vigilance from some despite what has went on/where we find ourselves.
-
Most of my mates are looking at 'Pay as you Go'. Generally, many don't want to give all the money up-front to people they don't trust. I anticipate a spin campaign that will shortly crank up through the gears.............moonbeams and emotional blackmail.
-
Players play football and are paid for it. That is to say the natural role of a player is 'to take'. Nothing wrong in that, it is their profession and how they finance their lives. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Most communicate via journalists and ghost written articles and are generally reluctant to criticise the gravytrain that fed or feeds them. They were often lined up to give their opinion/lines when those upstairs have problems. eg.SDM in aftermath of 'We Deserve Better'. In short they are often used in PR/spin campaigns. Regards our situation it takes courage and/or intelligence allied to conviction and love of the club for an ex-player to come forward and criticise the continuing line of corporate vultures to go through Ibrox. Get a group of John Brown, Richard Gough and Alex Rae together and you'd cover most bases. Not only is the situation complex but you have to navigate the media and hope they are fair to you and represent you fairly. eg. Bill McMurdo twisted what Gough believes into something that suited his argument but then McMurdo is a PR consultant (amongst other activities). I would hope that the day would come when the support don't need 'legends' of figureheads to point out the obvious and push them towards action. Is it not time we thought for ourselves ? This is where the ongoing policy of Confuse and Divide has helped the various incarnations of the board to keep the support gulible and funding them.
-
That makes me think a little.............. The illusion of 'togetherness' One of the main reasons we are fading away as a club is because of two differing objectives that aren't compatible or shouldn't be together. 1. Real ambition and aspiration for the football club. 2. Being a cash cow for a small group of individuals and groups. We can't generate enough money for both. The other day, the club statement finished with the following.......... The last part where it says "dear to us all" is the lie that underwrites this post.
-
David Somers buys 35,000 shares + Easdale buys more shares
buster. replied to Frankie's topic in Rangers Chat
If Mr.Somers actually pays out of his own pocket and somehow isn't reimbursed or provided guarantees it would go against the MO of recent times. When you consider timing, the PR campaign (spin) that is in play and that it almost certainly wasn't something that DSomers suddenly thought a good investment after 6 months as chairman then I wonder............... -
Thank's for your reply ! Couple of things you didn't answer. Are you a poster on RM and if so were you vocal with your criticisms regarding CW and CG (post April 2013) on that forum ? Your record on such matters is of relevance because you seem to be in the forefront of pushing the current board and critising the UoF or/and Mr.King. There is certainly a debate to be had on all and some have their opinion, whilst others are trying to weigh up the situation before doing as they see fit. This is where the board's spin-machine comes into play and has in different guises and over many years managed to fool the Rangers support time and time again. It has contributed enourmously to keeping the fans divided and incapable of meaningful 'opposition'. Without real opposition but with blind loyalty......we are where we are. So when it comes to those at the 'forefront', I think their record on such matters is VERY RELEVANT. I'm not interested in simple forum rivalries either but I am interested in how the support is so divided or rather has became so divided over a timescale that goes back to SDM and moreso in the damage that this does. The open door that this has helped leave for corportae vultures to get their claws into. As for you having been on the board of the RST, I simply didn't know that. As I said I'm not a member of any group and am not interested in some of the issues that go back & forth re. certain groups. I am more interested in the damage that the general division within the support, how it was sown and has been nutured. I would point out that the division was sown and continues to be nutured by those who have been and currently are in the boardroom......for their advantage.
-
The choice given in the article was somewhat incomplete........... And the only way to change the dynamic is for the supporters to stop lining the pockets of those in and around the boardroom. The crux is that we can't TRUST those in executive control, nor do we know who some of the main shareholders behind them are. Some of these shareholders who have been at the coalface of decision-making through the 'vanishing 70M' time. There are no easy choices here, there are only different degrees and timescales of pain. The board represent a continuation of what we've now become used to. They would be in control of a club that fades away in terms of competivity. Then there will be the push to takeover the assets when or sometime after the contingent liability was to go away. For those who want to fund the club with this board in charge then look forward to downwards expectation management, empty corporatespeak, a lot of spin, talk but no walk, fans spending a lot of money but not seeing the proportionate benefits, being second best (in a good year) and in time the Europa League Qualifiers or equivalent. We will be established as the longterm 'Espanyol' of Glasgow in the shadow of Celtic. That is to say that our journey back will end in not being able to make that final step up and becoming happy with the odd Cup win like other provincial teams, think the early 80's. The alternative is also painful but there lys real ambition and a mission statement that will centre on the club, rather than trying to pocket as much of our cash as possible directly or indirectly. There isn't enough money coming in for both the club and upstairs&friends (eg.an onerous sports direct).
-
Tha analogy wasn't perfect. I'm tired and will try and come up with a better one tomorrow.
-
No but that is my choice. As I have previously pointed out, this is a salient point regards many of those who currently support the board and should be made as many seem to have forgotten. For more detail, see post 60 on this thread.