buster.
-
Posts
14,405 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
111
Posts posted by buster.
-
-
-
5IAR, they have Scottish football sewn up for as long as they want.
Unfortunatly I think you are right but winning an u20 league doesn't necessarily mean your youth system is the best.
Surely teams that have a fair number of u20 players playing in the first team are ahead in that particular department.
eg. If Dundee Utd had been able to play their best XI with u20's you'd have had the likes of Soutar, Gauld and Robertson playing.
0 -
-
Given that the Union of Fans is unpopular with the club, and bearing in mind that the club's own fan group - the Assembly - is part of the Union of Fans, what is the life expectation of the Assembly now that it has stopped dancing to the club's tune?
With a membership scheme in the offing, which will doubtless be controlled by the club, the Assembly has become redundant. If the club still funds it, it surely won't for much longer.
There will be an attempt to use any new membership scheme to try and marginalise those other groups who don't tow the partyline and have become 'awkward'....(It will also look to control and manage communication with the fans).
I don't know about headcount and numbers involved but if not too high, they may have considered writing them off, so to speak.
Thinking a fair percentage would drift back but as individuals.
Alasdair Lamont @BBCAlLamont 6 de may.Mr Summers QC says Rangers wish Union of Fans would "go away to allow the club to move on".
0 -
For me, it was blamed on the negative publicity caused by the boycott efforts which created financial uncertainty to certain outside entities. If you want to turn that into blaming the fans (or you), so be it. Again, some folks on here will spin anything negative so he's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.
It's ironic that Mr.Hunt is talking about spin when we are simply reading what was said in the business review and comparing it to what was said today.
If Mr.Wallace hadn't made the revisionist change in such an important part of the answer to one of the few probing questions then you wouldn't have needed to come on and tell us to stop nit-picking.
0 -
We all know whom they were referring to ... and the mass of the supporters or you and me it was not.
Why not just say what you alude to ?
The business review refers to fans, unless they are now regarded by the club as 'non-fans'.
In court on Tuesday, the QC who took instruction from Rangers said something that was perhaps revealing or perhaps not.
Alasdair Lamont @BBCAlLamont 6 de may.
Mr Summers QC says Rangers wish Union of Fans would "go away to allow the club to move on".
Today GW today said that fans were not blamed in the business review and revised the text to suit this line.
0 -
I saw through Whyte from the beginning; I did not see through Green until the tapes were revealed; fair enough hang me for it.
If you were working in some kind of advisory capacity in the material you'd have been given your P45 and not asked back for a similar gig.
As it is, we are only messageboard posters but when one shouts so loud and often it is better to do so with a decent track record.
0 -
I think you are seeing what you want to see because I don't see a difference in the term "coverage" and the term "media" and think its petty to nitpick the words like this. Anyone without an preconceived agenda wouldn't give two shits about the words.
Aye right, forget the words............next it'll be the pounds
0 -
I was happy to accept (in answer to your questions on another thread) that I was taken in by Mr Green at first as were the vast majority of others yourself excluded apparently.
Well documented on FF.
This is why I mentioned it in the first place.
Nearly all those standing 'unconditionally' with the current board are the same who were shouting beside the likes of Green.
Their credibility on such judgement calls is effected.
Many did make the mistake and got carried along with the wave but you are someone who I would have thought savvy enough to see through the bluster, apparently not.
It is relevant in that you might want to err on the side of caution or not be so generous with the benefit of the doubt.
0 -
-
Yes they are but I read "negative coverage " as implying coverage in the media; in other words it wasn't so much the fact that Mr King and the UoF were saying what they were saying it was the wide coverage it was getting that was the issue.
"in some quarters".............. is the phrase you want to examine.
Put the shovel away BH
0 -
-
-
Let's not jump down his throat - if this is a dipping of the toe in fan waters then it may be a good thing, a dry run for something a bit more substantial. Problem is there's next to no time left to take the next step.
If he wants to persuade people he's the read deal, that session won't have changed anyone's mind on anything, so if you're going to do it Mr Wallace, do it real fast.
We've seen similar movies before, they end badly.
No meaningful transparency
Deliberate misleading
Large Bonus percentages with no clear and justifiable triggers (even on contract)
Lies
Talk about scouting and appoint spin-doctors.
Unrealistic targets with insufficient detail on how they will be attained (despite having 150 days to think of them)
etc
etc
No, they're taking the p**h.
0 -
I must have missed that part where it specifically says the fans are the cause....
Firstly ask Graham why the word "media" wasn't specified in the actual business review but chose to use the term today and in so doing was inaccurate and revisionist.
It was and is very clear who and whom are referred to with the phrase "in some quarters".
If you choose not to see that, it says more about your position (built on sand) than anything else.
0 -
that lad could sidestep questions at international level.
You could buy an 'Action Man', load it with corporate non-answers and ask the man on RTV to ask questions then pull the neck chord.
You can tell it's his first gig as a CEO.
Out of his depth but happy swimming in a pool of ten pound notes.
0 -
.@gaz_2k11 I absolutely care about the Club personally and professionally. We have a big job to do here & I am proud to be Rangers' CEO.
Gary Haire @gaz_2k11 · 15m
@RFC_Official do u really care about the club like the supporters or is it jus another job to u??
He cares about it 100% !!
0 -
Some are really at it.
We all know whom they were referring to ... and the mass of the supporters or you and me it was not.
Wallace just said "media"
The business review didn't mention "media"
Business Review
The Board believes that one of the major factors influencing the merchant acquirer to change its terms
was the extensive negative coverage of calls in some quarters for supporters to refrain or delay
purchasing season tickets.
GW in Q&A
Just to be clear, fans were not blamed for the withdrawl of the credit card facility.
The review said that negative comment in the media was a factor in the Club's credit card provider seeking security over Ibrox.
He is playing on words and isn't even very good at it, nor does it have plausible deniability.
0 -
Surely, based on GW's answer, it's up to the Remuneration committee to justify his bonus???
I wrote the following on another thread earlier....
What I would say is that any bonus paid should have proportional and recognizable value for the club.That is to say that any contract that contains a bonus clause should clearly state what tangible targets or similar would trigger such a bonus.
In the case of Graham Wallace and the 100% bonus we now know that this isn't the case and this IMO is what makes it particularly damaging to the credibility of the individual, the board and the finances of the club.
Added to that is the way we have found out, with the club having to be forced by legal means.
It only makes you wonder what else is under the bonnet.
ie. A lack of transparency within his contract at a time when it was and is vital.
0 -
So far this has been a real disappointment. Sentiment was right but medium completely wrong.
This should have complemented an open, minuted meeting. A shame that we are no closer to securing one.
He lied on the credit card question. (see post 26)
He isn't even very good at lying or covering tracks.
0 -
how can you justify a bonus that your reported receiving?
GW: Any bonus that I may be awarded would be discretionary, based on a mix of company and personal performance.This would be determined by the remuneration committee & any bonus for this year would only reflect the time I've been here.
You didn't answer the question Graham.
0 -
-
Someone can takeover, gotta go !!
0 -
is blaming fans for credit card issues "working hard to gain their trust" Graham???. Answer REAL questions!
Interesting question
GW: Just to be clear, fans were not blamed for the withdrawl of the credit card facility.The review said that negative comment in the media was a factor in the Club's credit card provider seeking security over Ibrox.
Liar, in part it was said/inferred that they were.
Review said..........
The Board believes that one of the major factors influencing the merchant acquirer to change its terms
was the extensive negative coverage of calls in some quarters for supporters to refrain or delay
purchasing season tickets.
http://www.rangers.co.uk/images/staticcontent/documents/RangersBusinessReview.pdf
I'm struggling to see the word "media"
0
Is Wallace Trying to Discredit McCoist
in Rangers Chat
Posted
Good post Hildy (no.51)
I'll try to come at it from another angle.
There are two main layers of power at Ibrox.
At the top you have the executive board and underneath them is the football operation.
What we've had in recent years is what you might describe as a 'mutual survival pact' between two seperate gravytrains.
Neither have been or are good for the club. Although the important difference between them is that the board have an agenda that gives priority to themselves and their backers whereby the football dept. is simply not very good at what they do.
When I say "mutual", that hasn't always been accurate because there have been public spats, negative subliminal messages etc.....However at important junctures there has been 'back scratching'. Ally McCoist isn't a good football manager and in a normal enviroment he would have been sacked by now but 'club politics' have made it difficult for the board to do this and Ally has helped the board sell ST's and backed every chancer to walk through the doors. At the moment AMcC seems more reluctant to contribute in this way and we'll have to see how it develops.
So we have had and have various incarnations of executive control (board), none of whom we can trust giving priority to the political rather than the football.
Aslong as the money keeps rolling in they won't rock the boat.
Recently we had a business review that pointed to scouting as being important (120 days to realise that/ act on it) but went out and signed a spin-doctor.
Talk about the football, Act on the political................ It's their MO.
We had Green talk about CL music, no (external) debt etc. but he was long gone with pockets full as the truth became clear.
The tell-tale sign was that in the IPO prospectus there was no provisional spend allocated towards scouting, youth & development.
We have Wallace talking about SPFL1 Championships in 3 years (without real credible detail on how that is to be achieved), he'll be long gone before we can hold him to account.
It's a multi-layered gravytrain (board&Co and football) where many benefit disproportionally as they contribute to an 'Omnishambles'.
The real losers are the football club and the supporters.
We have a football club that isn't Fit for Purpose at any level