buster.
-
Posts
14,226 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
111
Everything posted by buster.
-
You've been 'stung' with that logic recently when Chuck spouted it. and now... 70M gone 'Onerous contracts' still in place. Bonus culture alive and well. Spin not Scout .............etc.
-
The Scotsman article contains the UoF statement where it plainly says 'consider'. Do the board think it more relevant to refer to reports rather than what was actually said at the meeting between the two parties ? I would ask to see a link where a 'report' didn't mention the paragraph of the UoF statement where if it mentioned 'consider...legally binding undertakings'. We've been here before in the Wallace twitter Q&A. Do you think the corporate goverence they mention includes a special line in 'serial misleading' ?
-
Speculating about something that didn't happen is largely irrelevant. UoF went away from the meeting and issued a statement to inform. The board at Ibrox went away from the meeting, apparently didn't get back in touch with the UoF after 'considering' and issued a statement on Saturday night that is in part, designed to mislead, How can an educated person not learn from past mistakes and not smell a rat when the board continually look to mislead, confuse and divide in their communications ?
-
You said "But I still strongly believe he did good things for us even if virtually no-one else does anymore." It was bullshit and bluster, saying what he thought would go down well. He was good at it, he fiitted the role perfectly. A more brazen liar than even Whyte, I think he actually enjoyed it at times.
-
No ban, I still post on FF. Recently there have been problems with the server and sometimes it gets to be a pain. Hopefully it'll be sorted soon. As for Green, If you remain fooled by his bluster there is little hope of you seeing through anything.
-
It's late and I made a mistake in the line about 'contradiction' which I have now edited. It now reads........What I am saying is that 4 days after the meeting, the board want to appear as though they are contradicting what the UoF said in their statement about 'cosidering the legally binding undertakings'. The Scotsman article you quote contains the UoF statement where it plainly says 'consider'. Do the board think it more relevant to refer to reports rather than what was actually said at the meeting between the two parties ?
-
Is that not a little bit rich coming from you stb ? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bit of comedy for a Saturady night I was looking back at an old thread the other day and I had a chuckle to myself when I saw you posting a comment about myself and my temerity to be 'negative' about Charles Green. It was a Leggo blog from December 2012 and my username on FF is 'buster'. http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/vb/showthread.php?51125-Leggat-UNDER-ATTACK-AND-THE-ENEMY-WITHIN&highlight=leggat This is what you posted...... "In my lurking buster doesn't come across as all that balanced right now, don't think I've seen one slightly positive comment from him about Green."
-
I guess it helped to change subject. Simple yes/no question for you BH. Can you see proportional benefit from the money spent (approx. 70M) ?
-
I'm not sure exactly why you are speculating on what might or should have been reported. What I was pointing out was simply that the UoF issued a statement where it said ""A proposal was made by Mr Wallace that whilst the board would not grant a security, they could consider giving a legally binding undertaking which would protect Ibrox from sale, sale and leaseback, or as any form of security for a loan or other finance," And that the board in their statement tonight said “Whilst the Board is reported to have offered legally binding undertakings during a fan group discussion in relation to Ibrox and Murray Park, this is not the case." What I am saying is that 4 days after the meeting, the board want to appear as though they are contradicting what the UoF said in their statement about 'considering the legally binding undertakings'. The UoF went away from that meeting waiting for a call because they had been told the legally binding undertakings were under consideration. Apparently there was no call. Tonight, the board deny reports of having offered legally binding undertakings........(What reports and from where ?) They don't deny having considered it. However the wording used is (as so much of board communications) to confuse rather than inform and gives the impression that things were resolved at the meeting and needed no futher communication. ------------------------------------------ I see a similar hand at work here as that who wrote the answer for GW on the question of 'blaming fans' in the twitter Q&A.
-
Onerous contracts, commissions, fees, bonus culture etc. Wrote this earlier..........
-
I tried to phone Tommy Wright to ask him but he isn't answering.
-
They were never going to come out with a number given circumstances. (approx. towards end of month) I think there will be a regulatory annoucement or 2 fairly close together that will say something along the lines of :- 1. ST renwals are significantly lower than projected and will as per previous going-concern warning have serious implications on trading, but 2. As per business review the club are to go-ahead with a share issue to fill the gap (short-term) --------------------------------------------------- Anyone know how long it would take to get a share issue up and running ?
-
The word 'consider' was used in the UoF statement. edit / here it is...... "A proposal was made by Mr Wallace that whilst the board would not grant a security, they could consider giving a legally binding undertaking which would protect Ibrox from sale, sale and leaseback, or as any form of security for a loan or other finance," said UoF in a statement. That quote was included in all the media reports I read.
-
Atletico are Champions !! :champs: Amazing achievement from Atletico. To win a 38 game league campaign against two high-spending footballing superpowers who have the best two players in the world is the biggest story in European football. To reach a CL Final at the sametime is like defying the laws of gravity. Diego Simeone has largely taken a group of players that were already at the club and transformed them into worldbeaters.
-
But are they constituted as a democratic organisation ?
-
I don't think I've ever seen the score 8-5 in a football match before I opened this thread Thanks Elfideldo
-
Regards the law, I simply don't know how this would be interpreted or indeed any steps to take wrt any investigation (the press could start by asking Graham Wallace to expand on the issue of onerous contracts (not surprisingly he doesn't take many press questions/conferences). Take into consideration that this is what sp.ivs do for a living and they'll know very well where the boundaries of the law are and in the case of having to cross them, how best to 'camouflage' it. You would imagine given the public scrutiny they would have been especially careful. I remember back in Feburary/March of 2013 hearing on good authority that the fine detail of commercial contracts was at that time, for the eyes of a select chosen few. Those not given access, included members of the board at that time.
-
Quite compelling in a '100mph nervous football' type of way but little quality being shown other than the lad Clifti (sp) who looks a real prospect who could go further in the game.
-
Seems as though it's around the usual 'average attendence' at Parkhead throughout the season, ie. mid-fortiesK. The difference being is that it will be the actual number of bums on seats.
-
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me three times........????????????
-
Easdale proxies = Continuation in large part of what went before AGM. "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark." Shakespeare
-
Doesn't show this group of supporters in a particularly bright light. Would you expect their logic behind their club politics to be any 'brighter' ? I think I'm right in saying that most of those connected with this line have been consistent in mistaken judgements wrt to club politics. If anything they should serve as an 'early warning system'.
-
Momentum is growing. Between ST numbers and the production (not talk) of alternative merchandice the 'sp.iv status quo' is not going to last. The vital signs are:- - the unpoliticised middle rump of the support no longer have confidence in how the club is being run and have in good part withdrawn up-front money. - actions are now being taken (opposed to talk). - the now 'traditional' divisory tactics (of board/longterm) are presently having limited effect.
-
This is where the sp.ivs have been clever. Many of their direct or indirect 'earners' are tied in with fan spend, money that is traditionally regarded as 'funding the club'. Look at the argument that goes.... A. Where has the 70M gone ? B. It's all accounted for in accounts audited by Deloittes. My question would be: Can you see proportional benefit to the club from the 70m spent ? I don't think anyone could objectively answer 'yes'. So, where has it gone ? In the business review, Graham Wallace made a point of mentioning "onerous contracts" which RIFC or/and TRFC are tied into and obviously are not weighted in favour of the club. Apparently some or all of these contracts were signed without the presence of lawyers. These may represent a 'lead weight' for the club going forward and an excellent earner for others. So we come back to where we started, your quoted post above. We are left in a situation whereby to fund the club's continued existence, we will also be the cash cow for those on the favourable side of the 'onerous contracts', a lead weight that means constant austerity. Over and above that we still have the bonus culture alive and kicking. Problem is with the above, the club will enter a downward spiral that will end in a dark place. So when you speak of "existence", bear that in mind. There are rumours that the beneficiaries of some of the onerous contracts reside in the Easdale Proxies.
-
The official site put up the following today......... When I looked at the official site at the beginning of this week it already had the TO opening this weekend with the same timings. Is McMurdo Jnr. working for the club website aswell ?