buster.

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.

He's asked for the contracts to be made available to the court. The club are of course desperate to keep them secret but I suspect they will fail to do so.

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.

We will find out when Ahmed gets to court.

Not necessarily.

That case is more about the contract between Ahmad and the club/company.

Read the thread title and thought for a moment that Barry Ferguson was coming back as Chairman.

So they decide when and if we get any cash.

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.

Admin 2 if we got proper owners after it would be the best way forward. But there is zero chance of a change of ownership and all there onerous deals with pals will remain in place.

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 ?

There doesn't seem to be any other obvious reason.

Blue Pitch and Margarita are now fronted by Sandy Easdale instead of Charles Green.

admin 2 is far better for the board than dave king.

 

but it's impossible for a club with 50 million of pledged investement and costs of 20 million or less to go into admin. unless someone in control wants it to.

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.

Couldn't agree more, we have thrown away the best chance our club will ever have had to "sort ourselves out".

I'd broadly agree but who has ultimate responsibility ?

I always have in mind the offer of the defeated candidates at the AGM, to work without pay. Perhaps there were good reasons why the major Shareholders didn't fancy Wilson or Murdoch, but when you think of the savings there could have been, you have to wonder why the offer was rejected.

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.

If I had put £20m into Rangers in the past, and it was well known, and if had stated publicly that I was prepared to put another £50m towards the club in the right circumstances, I would not be impressed by calls urging me to place such a large sum in an escrow account.

 

My response would probably not be appropriate for a respectable forum like this one.

 

I am not one of King's followers, but I believe he has the money and a willingness to spend it, but only when he believes the circumstances are right, which is fair enough and perfectly reasonable.

 

We have certainly been too trusting in the past, but King has shown by past deeds that he will put money into Rangers. Expecting him to put £50m in an escrow account is unrealistic and bordering on insulting - especially as many see him as the last credible hope for our floundering club.

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.

In my youth it was the Everly Bros, "So Sad".

 

We used to have good times together,

 

but now I feel them slip away,

 

it makes me cry to see love die,

 

so sad to watch good love go bad.

 

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..........

"Any decision not to renew season tickets can only damage the Club. Such action would only serve to harm the very institution that is so dear to all of us."

 

http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/6929-club-statement

The last part where it says "dear to us all" is the lie that underwrites this post.