Jump to content

 

 

buster.

 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    14,225

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    111

 Content Type 

Everything posted by buster.

  1. buster.
    Well organised, good looking top and a very effective signal.
  2. buster.
    Daniel Stewarts are probably getting pulled up by their bank manager as we type !! Apparently their finances are in a bad state.
  3. buster.
    A couple of days ago I thought that GW might be somewhere in the middle but if you look at the make-up of the board and respective backgrounds, then place them accordingly in respect to the actual situation..............it suggests that the disagreement/split is as follows. Easdale. James...(front for Sandy who is front for the 'proxies' including the anonymous) plus David Somers (first man appointed to what was left of the board (2 men)) At this point the dominant shareholders were the Easdale proxies and the Green friendly Nomad, Daniel Stewart recommended the appointment. ie. Somers = more or less a proxy placeman. Just after this Scott Gardiner turned the CEO role because he refused to be essentially a puppet....................(of the proxy block) v Then you have Crighton of Laxey being appointed as Laxey steadily increased their stake. So with the above you would have a 2 v 1advantage to the Easdale proxies in any vote. However a week after Crighton of Laxey arrives,......... Wallace of the 120 days is appointed. So as I see it, to have what could be regarded as a split between 4 boardmembers,........ Wallace would have to lean towards whatever the Laxey strategy-tactics are. As I said a couple of days ago some of the Easdale proxies were around and possibly have direct involvment in the Case of the vanishing 70M (in part). Perhaps some of the "onerous contracts" are in someway linked to them and Wallace leans towards a 'straighter type of sp.iv'. Note. Re division............Think what Sandy Easdale said in the infamous doorstep interview that just happened 'by co-incidence' and then what Wallace delivered in the business review. .
  4. buster.
    Bottomline The board of RIFC (plus Sandy Easdale) had the choice to engage with them or not,...... they did.
  5. buster.
    The RIFC board seem to think them legitimate and/or relevant because they were prepared to sit down with them. What's important and IMO the reason the board are taking them seriously is that the large 'unpolitized middle rump' of the Rangers support which over the years the club have been able to depend on have now in large part effectively given a vote of no-confidence in the RIFC board. That 'middle ground' are in part starting to awaken.
  6. buster.
    It looks as though Alan Clark gets to an anonymous but important and continuous issue that doesn't go away no matter who you have on the board to flank Mr.Easdale. Namely those or some of those who have given Sandy Easdale their voting rights. Let's say the apparent disagreement/ division is between the Easdale proxies and Laxey. You'd have a board where the in the Easdale proxy corner you'd probably have James Easdale and David Somers. In the Laxey corner is Crighton with probably Wallace. Note that the strings (puppet) that extend from James to Sandy may well not stop but in fact extend further to the unidentified proxies. Thoughts ?
  7. buster.
    I think education around life in general is literally 'spinning' out of control. The increasing trends towards a general lack of accountibility or refusal to take responsibility can be correlated to the increase in the so-called PR industry. The way this industry has in part develpoed is having a grave effect on that novel concept, 'the truth'. The next generation will know of nothing else.
  8. buster.
    Yes,... and you have to consider who was on the board at that time and ask who (board and/or shareholder(s)) was laying down that condition. Board Stockbridge Easdale. James Somers (7/11/13)..recommended by Daniel Stewart (Green friendly Nomad) Just after the Gardiner refusal (reported in media on 15/11/13)..... Crighton was appointed (14/11/13) Then Wallace (20/11/13) ps. my understanding is that the media were correct on the main reason why SG refused.
  9. buster.
    Learning a new swimming stroke in shark infested waters.
  10. buster.
    Bottomline is that each individual has an economic choice or decision to make wrt the ST question. As it stands it would seem as though a large percentage are delaying or have decided not to renew/buy. With that in mind it would seem as though the board of the club decided to engage with the UoF. What is important here is that the board of the club made this decision based on the deficit between projected and actual ST numbers at this point in time. Ie. the board perceive that the UoF vehicle and their fundamental aims are in good part favourably recognized by many of those who haven't renewed or pledged to 1872 Ltd.
  11. buster.
    I think the number that is most important is projected ST's less actual ST's. It will probably need a regulatory notice to tell the markets because of the 'hole' it makes in projected numbers.
  12. buster.
    Just a sitrep that I don't think contained anything new. The stand-off continues. Let's see if today brings any communications from board to UoF.
  13. buster.
    Just to add on the apparent split/disagreement within the boardroom. If GW was in the middle, will he have to consider his 100% bonus given that the trigger(s) are non-specific and depend on the judgement of the renumeration committee. Remuneration and Nominations Committee James Easdale (Chairman)...................................Blue Pitch / Margarita Norman Crighton...................................................Laxey David Somers...........................................................?? / Note: Was recommended by Daniel Stewarts Ltd who have always been close to Green Graham Wallace (attendee)
  14. buster.
    Sometimes it's best to read the story and any quotes before reading too much into the headline but it doesn't sound good or for that matter, unsurprising.
  15. buster.
  16. buster.
    Brahim has just set his alarm. For the avoidance of doubt, that was a joke.
  17. buster.
    "Silly" ?...............I thought it was pretty much on the preverbial button. 1. 'Old mucker' referred to a former FD of a board you 'supported'. 2. Brian Stockbridge is now officially toxic and in part to blame for things this board want to wash their hands of ! I and others saw him as toxic from the summer of 2012. Others such as Somers and yourself have rather belatedly come to that view. 3. The camera refers to dubious tactics of 'innocently' attempting to drop someone in it using a social occasion although I do appreciate different levels.
  18. buster.
    You should have got your 'old mucker' Brian Stockbridge to film it for you.
  19. buster.
    The law of averages says that you must be correct with something, so yes you probably are but I can't recall the subject off the top of my head.
  20. buster.
    Rather than reply here, I think I might put up a thread later/tomorrow where these issues will be covered in more depth.
  21. buster.
    You are entitled to your opinion and you may or may not be right,..... or indeed somewhere in between. If you can be so categoric then I'm sure you'll be able to expand and tell us what is 'right'.
  22. buster.
    No ! He's conducting a little damage limitation. If you removed them, you would only play into his hands. For the record, it was the McMurdo website on 'leadership & strategy' that had references to himself being like "Merlin' but they were fairly low-key. He was generally mocked for this image he had of himself and the name stuck in social media circles. Only at this point has he went large on 'Merlin' himself in an attempt to limit damage. ps. he does have a PR consultancy that advertises................. "IMAGE ENHANCEMENT & REPUTATION PROTECTION" When you open the page, the James Bond theme "Nobody does it better" plays
  23. buster.
    When you think about it, Bill Jnr. doesn't give value for money when it comes to spinning for certain interests within of the Rangers board. He only seems to be taken semi-seriously by those who could be considered as 'unconditional followers'. In fact he almost serves the observers of the saga moreso as an 'early-warning system' of sorts regards what may be coming. Not only that but his personal credibility to call himself a Rangers supporter has and is taking a heavy hit. This long-running soap opera has had many metaphorical 'victims', I think McMurdo Jnr. is fast becoming another.
  24. buster.
    ..................................
  25. buster.
    I think you have to consider that many companies may consider Rangers a brand that is currently to be avoided because of the ongoing soap opera (which includes financial risk, a contingent liability on Ibrox and the spectre of S&LB that doesn't seem to go away).
×
×
  • 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.