Jump to content

 

 

buster.

 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    14,226

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    111

 Content Type 

Everything posted by buster.

  1. buster.
    - There are more than 8 players who have left Hibs. - If Hibs not only need to gel a new team together but still need to sign them and Hearts will more or less have a youth team should we really need to go out there and sign X amount of players ?
  2. buster.
    More often than not it is a lack of meaningful dialogue from the board that is the problem. Perhaps you meant to say "open it".
  3. buster.
    If he were there, I'd be surprised if he hadn't. Perhaps best to wait and hear from the man himself.
  4. buster.
    From the Business Review (April 2014) Strengthen the Club’s Football Operations - With the creation of the new position of Chief Football Operations Officer, with specific responsibility for developing best in class football operations support. This new role will support the Football Manager and the Board and will concentrate initially on developing player talent identification, scouting and recruitment capability Invest in Academy Players An Academy Development Fund will be created with dedicated annual investment, increasing over time, committed to the acquisition and development of high calibre young players (Charlie Telfer?) at different stages of their careers with the target to increase the number of Club trained talent coming through to play in the first team at an early stage. Develop Player Asset Management Developing playing talent is one of the major challenges at any football club. The Chief Football Operations Officer will also have the remit to develop the Club’s player asset strategy which will build a long term structure and plan to deliver playing talent for the Club and maximize value from player trading. http://www.rangers.co.uk/images/staticcontent/documents/RangersBusinessReview.pdf Did Miller get in ('before the lock') the appointment of a Chief Football Operations Officer ? Will it ever happen ?
  5. buster.
    They forgot the line. We are a team,... you pay your money and we'll make sure '10%' of it goes to the club.
  6. buster.
    The germ of it started a long time ago with SDM, David Grier and a floating charge.
  7. buster.
    There shall be no code of anything that denies free speech that isn't abusive. Abuse is already covered within moderation guidelines.
  8. buster.
    If a DoF is appointed before signings are made then you have to wonder if a 34 year old striker will be considered to take up one of the 'highest earner' spots. For the above you need money though and the board prioritizes 'spin'.
  9. buster.
    In case you missed Forlan's post' date=' here it is again. Any thought's ? This hit's on an important point regard's your point about............"But at what point does it not only deprive the board, but also our club and a manager wishing to strengthen a squad ?" The question being about........... who would be deprived of more income ? I certainly doubt it's what we would see as being 'the club'..............I note that you connect it to the old favourite of buying players. This goes to the heart of the issue regarding the 70M spend from which you can't see anywhere near the proportional benefit to 'the club'. Being 'accounted for' doesn't cover it, 'onerous contracts' begin to. With the same people who back Sandy Easdale with their proxy votes, being who were in at the divvy-up. The board is where our problems are,.... so why not focus efforts upon them instead of looking to subtly discredit and divide others. Unless you have a different constructive solution, in which case, it'd be interesting to hear it.
  10. buster.
    There are all sorts and many different motives but let's retain focus on where our problems ly. The executive board of RIFC, shadow director, mysterious proxy voting blocks and their at times dishonest and often misleading MO, leading Rangers towards eventual obscurity. These are the issues that the majority are concerned with, thank's in large part to efforts by the UoF in recent months. We need to focus on this and not look to subtly divide support for such efforts / pressure. If someone else has a solution then fine, but this is not the time to divide......
  11. buster.
    The minority are those who are indifferent/happy with the way the club is being run or are happy to go along with the current board aslong as they have their tummies rubbed and seek more to cause division amongst other supporters rather than honest, constructive and transparent focus on where the problem currently lys. The majority want to see action or committments from the current board regarding the longterm future of the club. The growth in numbers is reflected by ST numbers, which whilst there isn't an exact number.... they are signicantly down.
  12. buster.
    Do you believe the assets to be 'safe' ?
  13. buster.
    I've added to the post to cover in part the answer to your question. I'd also point to the ST renewals as a firm vote of no-confidence in the current board. Whether you are in the VB or not (I don't know), your views on this and similar seem to be similar and they (VB) are very much a tiny minority group. That of course doesn't take away their right to an opinion but they have been closer than most to the various incarnations of the Ibrox board over the past few years and have helped nuture divide whether deliberately or through a lack of judgement / being used.
  14. buster.
    Perhaps he refers to the slant (in OP) which comes from what I currently see as a minority viewpoint and that seeks to divide the most unified protests from supporters towards any board. One where it seems "transparency" wrt the SoS (on some trumped up issue) is as proportionaly important as the current board. You seem to forget that it is the bulk of the Rangers support who are not happy with the way the club is being run by the current board, the misleading dishonesty involved and where this is taking the club.
  15. buster.
    ................................................................
  16. buster.
    The current board are another stage of an ongoing process to suck money from the club and sooner or later position the assets of TRFC to their best advantage. We are on the path of the likes of Leeds and Coventry. The current "conflict" is the majority of Rangers supporters who are not happy with the way the club is being run by the current board, the misleading dishonesty involved and where this is taking the club. Your wish to examine the aims of the SoS is disengenuous and could be seen as an attempt to divide.
  17. buster.
    Was that the review that 5 months after joining GW told us that it might be an idea if we get a scouting network but thought it so important he brought in a spin-doctor instead ?
  18. buster.
    Merlin often has problems with historical data and facts. Altering them to suit seems to have become a habit. Spinning ............ with a wand...............
  19. buster.
    How do you square that paragraph with a recent previous post of yours where you stated that you don't trust the board ?
  20. buster.
    - If forums simply adhered to their moderation policy then there would be no abuse there. If you get offended by X, put him on 'ignore'. - This is a difficult time in our history and there will be strong views out there. - If individuals on twitter 'abuse' then there is the option to block them. If they are the type to continually abuse, any mooted 'code of conduct' would be ignored by them anyway. - Beware the attempt to marginalise or push for (harsh) criticism being labeled as 'abuse' in any efforts towards regulation. Freedom of speech still exists in the UK although it is continually under attack and isn't what it used to be. One of the methods of attack is to stigmatize and make people (including politicans) scared of addressing certain issues or not towing a certain line. Whilst not directly related to our situation, it is through such mooted 'code of conducts' or the like that certain issues or areas of discussion can start on the road to be marginalised or better controlled. Quite apart from that and as others have intimated, this initiative will achieve little or nothing and may actually stimulate more talk of division at a time where the great majority of the support are broadly united wrt being unhappy with how the executive board go about there business. . ps. It's ironic that the main root of this issue takes you back to the executive board, or rather the then dictator SDM alongside Jack Irvine.
  21. buster.
    They've forgotten the "source close to the board" and the 20,000 number. "Spin not Scout"
  22. buster.
    Poor wording on my part, I was referring to the capacity (numbers) of the Louden.
  23. buster.
    Zappa, retrospect isn't the issue here. What we had was a reporter of the publicly funded national radio station using an 'exclusive' (from Jack Irvine/RIFC) that stated the AGM vote as being a done deal and also using language that was an effort to disuade shareholders from voting/ there being any point in voting. Irvine/RIFC were attempting to take the heat out of the situation answell as the wind out of opposition sails. There is also the issue of corporate goverence regards the club via an agent allowing the release of such information prior to the AGM itself. Last week we had a half-hearted attempt to put out there that the ST renewals had reached 20,000. I believe the half-heartedness of it refects the accuracy.
  24. buster.
    Did their 'wee black book' suddenly become a 'big black book' ?
  25. buster.
    Perhaps it's representative of what's to come. Trying to cling hold of a past because the future is bleak. You could also argue that when you put Spin before Scouting that articles on 'ex-favourites' are a logical consequence.
×
×
  • 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.