buster.
-
Posts
14,430 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
113
Everything posted by buster.
-
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 ?
-
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.