buster.
-
Posts
14,226 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
111
Everything posted by buster.
-
Sort of got it in the end then, good. AIM rules aren't "scaremongering" Note the conditional 'if' above regards numbers. As I said, the real issue is the actual number, a known unknown. Rules are potential consquences.
-
................................................
-
- Compare the numbers with those at the same point last year. - If there is a significant drop compared with last year/projections and you can't give good reason why renewals will suddenly pick-up. - AIM rule 11 should apply.
-
1. Today the club have informed us that the deadline has passed. 2. I stated that if there was a significant difference between the projected and the actual ST renewals then we should expect a regulatory annoucement. 3. This was based on the AIM market rule 11. 4. Specifically wrt 'expectation of performance'. 5. The rule states that any such notification should be made 'without delay'. What you suggest is akin to a schoolyard game of football where a team want to play on and on after the bell has gone, until they score enough goals to win the game. In the case of there being a significant downturn in numbers, what would justify your seeming expectation that supporters would suddenly decide to renew now (post deadline) in numbers that would materially alter the arithmetic ? --------------------------------------------------------------------- edit. The real issue is the actual number of renewals, the above is a potential consequence. One that good and timely corporate goverence would see happen 'without delay'.
-
The first thing that comes to mind is that it represents a gulf between the 2nd and 3rd tier but you can't base that on just 90 minutes. We played 3 competitive games against 2nd tier sides last season. We beat Falkirk and QotS, both away................(incidently they are also the the two sides we beat in our last 2 Scottish Cup Final victories). But lost the Ramsdens Cup Final to Raith Rovers.
-
With all due respect, try reading the OP slowly.
-
The official site says......THE renewal deadline has now passed.. http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/club-news/item/6974-season-ticket-waiting-list We should expect a regulatory annoucement if ST numbers are significantly down. Aim rule 11 A company must issue notification without delay of any new developments which are not public knowledge concerning a change in: its financial condition; its sphere of activity; the performance of its business; or its expectation of its performance.
-
You touch on an interesting issue that points to a club being an Omnishambles at all levels. IMO it's not a matter of either football operation or executive control not being fit for purpose, it is both. They are both gravytrains in their own right, hence the term I sometimes use, 'multi-layered gravtrain'. However, even looking at it simply............ the buck of responsibility rests at the top of the foodchain and that is the boardroom. If you look in more detail you realise that both layers feed of each other and that the board prioritise their own interests rather than that of the football club.
-
Yes,............SE basically tookover the role from Green.
-
They were acting in the interests of Hamilton AFC rather than being 'anti-Rangers'. Hamilton are 5/4 to go up. Hibs 4/7. Would have expected 6/4 on Hamilton so not as much value as I'd have expected.
-
I would agree with that. However there are occasions when he seems to overstep the mark. eg. Not a member of the PLC board but giving a media interview in which he clearly alludes to the contents of a regulatory and commercially confidential report not yet published (business review) The crux of the matter here is that he is the front for a large block of proxy votes who seem to have been at the heart of the soap opera from the summer of 2012.
-
You'd hope that anyone standing for election/pitching for a job would not only have a good CV but would have been able to put those advertised qualities and experience to good use. You would expect such a man not to follow the 'crowd' but analyse and think that little bit harder and see through bluster, eg. Charles Green. The other notable issue is unbalanced opinion. ie. admitted personal baggage that might aswell form an opinion even before the issue exists.
-
You say the use of the word "Disingenuous" will not make future dealings with the board any easier and then suggest taping the meeting would have been a good idea .............or were you only casting doubt on the veracity of this statement ?
-
TBF to the Daily Record, back in November they were who flagged up that Scott Gardiner had refused the role because he wasn't happy with the little to no independence allowed. What you have is another difficult one to reconcile. Top dollar plus potential 100% bonus for a puppet without proportionate responsibility. Did that come in as an 'onerous contract' ?
-
Unsatisfied ?...................No, it's how I thought you'd reply. It only helps confirms what I was thinking.
-
I wrote this earlier as part of a reply to you. You didn't reply but just in case you missed it this was the first part................. So as far as I understand it, you don't seem to trust the current board but vigoursly discourage or indeed pour scorn on those who wish to analyse events/statements etc from the board of RIFC in an effort to get to the bottom of events and/or back-up what they think/post. I find it difficult to reconcile this view/style of posting/attitude. To read the whole post see post 116 on this thread. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Replying to the above post,..... you say "factionalism seems to mature in an alarming fashion" and I'd agree that are certainly disagreements but how can you infer/say to people that they should simply look the other way because you think there is nothing 'we' can do about it ? You say you don't trust the board yourself but if you want to turn the other way or as others would say 'bendover', then that is your choice....no problem. But why criticise others who want to look closely at ongoing events in light of the recent past and current situation ?.......Then turn round and talk about factionalism ? If you don't trust the board, think we can't influence matters and seem to worry about 'factionalism' (note the dreaded 'ism') would it not make more sense if instead of constantly criticising those with whom you apparently share concerns with, you said your peace and withdrew from such conversations ?
-
Thank-you for the reply DB. So as far as I understand it, you don't seem to trust the current board but vigoursly discourage or indeed pour scorn on those who wish to analyse events/statements etc from the board of RIFC in an effort to get to the bottom of events and/or back-up what they think/post. I find it difficult to reconcile this view/style of posting/attitude. I think that given circumstances it very relevant and important to establish as far as we can, if there is good reason to be able to trust the executive board at the club or not. Personally I can see no good case that says there is and even those few on here that seem willing to give the board an opportunity apparently don't trust them either (yourself & apparently Mr.Hemdani included). Nor have I seen anyone anywhere put forward a convincing case for the 'defence'. If we can agree that there isn't sufficient grounds to trust them and bearing in mind recent history.........do you not think it reasonable for fans to act/ do something about it ? And if youself and BH don't trust the board, why so consistently bat against doubts expressed of the board ? The fact that no-one has the magic formula doesn't really answer that last question. If the current board did appear to have such realistic potions, then I could better understand this line but I don't see them. As for alternatives, I think the 'onerous contracts' may complicate the situation going forward and until you find out exactly what is 'under the bonnet' it is difficult to give detail. What is IMO required are changes in the executive board that can restore a good degree of trust that strategy is in the club's longterm interests and not in best part and disproportionately in the interests of individuals/groups. I see no practical route that is free of pain but I would like a board that can be trusted to act in the clubs interests whilst we embark on a difficult journey.
-
DB, in your post quoted above, you state that you don't trust the current board. Could you tell us why ?
-
What was that you said about semantic's ?................Second line then....... He was referring to the board statement in conjunction with the use of the word 'consider' in the UoF statement.
-
He is referring to the UoF statement where the word 'consider' was used (including The Scotsman) This was the meat or important part of all reports I saw. If you don't read the statements included in the reports then it explains your confusion or willful blindness.
-
I can smell the same style of spin from parts of the Wallace twitter Q&A. Can you trust a board of a financially challanged business who pay out good money for spin so as in part to mislead the customer ?
-
Do you think it wise to be willing to give the current board an opportunity if you don't trust them and they have done little or nothing to suggest that they are deserving of such trust ?
-
Thank's for the reply. I don't want to get personal or into a slanging match. I'm only searching for motives.
-
I was told that I'd been stung by the paranoia bug (and worse) when I got on the cases of Craig Whyte, likewise when CG&Co arrived, I'm used to it. Board/shareholders/proxies - There are obvious lines of continuation between what you seem to regard as old and new/completely seperate. - The 'onerous contracts' remain in place. - You have to appreciate that the current board is another stage of an ongoing process of basically 'sucking the marrow'. - Wallace can't be onside with all interests on the board at all times.
-
Is it 'hate' of the UoF or part of the UoF that motivates and IMO blinds you ?