Soulsonic5791

Unfortunately, there's no sarcasm emoticon mate or I'd have used that instead. I wasn't being serious.

I know. Why don't we create a season ticket monies escrow account? Now where have I heard that idea before...

Aye, with conditions attached!

The simple answer, on the surface, is 'none'. But we all know that assertion doesn't hold any water don't we.

A very good question. I've got a rough idea as to the answer as I'm sure loads of other people do too. Does anyone think that Chris Graham's Twitter feed wasn't checked before his invite was sent out?

Is this 'strategy' of 'giving' cash a sensible one? Doesn't seem so to me. The stand at Auchenhowie would surely have been a sensible starting point for taking the temperature of whether the board's bluster actually had any basis in fact and potentially translate to actually owning or having a security on a fixed asset. When I read that cash had been handed over to the 'good cause' of a 'stand to watch the boys', I shook my head in disbelief.

I know what it is being used for. I was meaning the ins and outs of the cash disposal.

Therein lies the crux of the problem in my eyes....transparency. Let's talk to a merchant banker for a tap but a fans vehicle which is answerable to the rank and file paying punter? Draw your own conclusions on that one. Can anyone enlighten me with regard to the RFFF money to be used at Auchenhowie, who controlled the handing over of that cash? Couldn't that have been used to 'acquire an asset'? Bluedell? Any thoughts?

Using a CIC to acquire club assets is highly ambitious and I'd need to be convinced of how realistic a goal that is. When you say '....as the security is needed elsewhere.' Bluedell, can you elaborate please. What exactly do you mean?

Having read Gaffer's recent comments, I would imagine that his feelings would be reflected amongst a multitude of fans who would like to contribute in some form but are unsure what it is that they would be backing. When Rangers First was established I seriously contemplated making a contribution but never went through with it. Why? The underlying objectives were unclear other than acquiring a shareholding. I must admit that as a lapsed member of the RST, I was skeptical of this organisation especially in light of the trust's 'Student Loans' fallout. What made me doubly skeptical of it was, as soon as the board assumed power, moves were put in place to amalgamate the various fan's bodies who had a shareholding. Why was this? What purpose did it truly serve? Then the new fan body proposals were sent out to season ticket holders (as if they were stakeholders) to vote on. When Alex Macdonald and Willie Henderson were wheeled out at Ibrox to promote it I was completely turned off. Then there was the board members resignations and the Craig Houston stuff which didn't exactly help the image. Here's a thought - let's imagine for a second that King, Park and the rest sell up. The new 'owners' decide to return to the Easdale/Ashley model of running the club at a loss but have the usual floating charges on the assets etc etc. What happens to Club 1872's shareholding if they decide to further dilute through the issuing of new equity to themselves (as Dave and Chums are doing currently) or far worse (and God forbid) fold the thing up? The fans would be stiffed again. Under the current ownership model, it would make more sense to me if the fans were secured creditors. How realistic this is (if indeed it's not already been explored by Club1872 or is the case in some fashion) I'm not too sure.

Was going to cite the 50 plus one rule that Rousseau mentions. To use a McCoistism, let's be brutally frank here, unless there is a chance to make serious profits on the back of investment no wealthy individual is going to invest in a football club. Wealthy benefactors for the most part are an absolute myth. That applies as much at the bottom as it does at the very top of the game. Do people honestly believe that the likes of Ian Maxwell at Partick Thistle are hanging about because of an everlasting love of the Jags? Even with the paltry gates they get some profit must see its way into the owners pockets, however small. We need to devise a way of safeguarding the club in perpetuity but allow corporate interests (regardless of club affection) a slice of the action. A symbiosis if you will, but one which is weighted slightly in the 'fans'/club's' favour. Removal of the profit motive is counterproductive but it can be harnessed to tempt people/groups/institutions to invest. Most fans would be happy for any profit to be recycled into the club in some form. Whereas your corporate interest would prefer to take dividends to satisfy the needs of individuals or funds etc. I don't know enough about the exact ins and outs but from the outside looking in, it would appear to me at least, that any momentum a genuine fan ownership vehicle had during the run up to the recent takeover was effectively halted in its tracks when its usefulness to the current incumbents had been exhausted.

Having read the comments on the thread, I find myself still scratching my head with regard to fan involvement with the management of the club. Does anyone agree that the shareholder interests among the differing equity blocks in all likelihood vary significantly in nature? As such, I'd love to find out what the number one priority of each shareholding is with regard to the reasons for buying shares. Therein lies the potential for a fundamental disconnect between fan investment and other investors. Club wellbeing aside, I struggle to see the current impasse between the varying interests being resolved to the satisfaction of the 'fans' anytime soon. Would the offer of a secured loan from Club 1872 result in the organisation being viewed differently from the board's perspective? Would Club 1872 seek to defer any potential future dividend in return for something else? Did the RFFF money which is being used for the stand etc. at Auchenhowie have any conditions attached? All investors want some sort of return. The difference is how the return manifests itself.

There's no hysteria on my part on the back of two bad results. I have been watching the management of the club with a keen eye for decades, and D'Artagnan raises some valid points with regard to our chairman. We have been told on several occasions that money has been spent on infrastructure. This may well be the case and visually evident in areas of the club's operations that the average fan has zero access to. Having said that, other than scaffolding being present on the roof of the Govan Stand, some bunting, turnstile faceplates and a change of paint colour in the dressing rooms, I see very little evidence of this supposed sizeable capital expenditure. I'm not being churlish here. The back of the Copland doesn't even get lit up sufficiently on a midweek match night! Please feel free to educate me on this if I'm way wide of the mark. I genuinely want to be informed of outlay demonstrables. But back to King and Co. The way that they (the board) courted McInnes regardless of lots of us not really fancying him, was an embarrassment. This was on the back of the drawn out farce of recruiting Pedro and all that subsequently ensued during his disastrous tenure. To then compound those errors by giving the job to an u20s coach smacks of either discord at the top or amateur management; at least on the face of it. But we all know that these guys in their other business interests can hardly be classed as amateurs. King is the chairman and by extension the club's figurehead. As such, the support naturally looks to him to provide leadership. Okay, Stewart Robertson makes the odd appearance in delegated matters, but for important issues King takes charge and we hardly look to Douglas Park or his son for leadership do we? And just for the record for anyone that's interested - I'm no Merlin stooge or acolyte.

Cold hard cash might prove to be a useful instrument in attracting and securing a proven manager. Remuneration and a realistic player transfer budget are essential in that respect. The question is 'are the board willing to countenance spending some?' I suspect I already know the answer to that but I'll open it to the floor...

What chance a good manager? Their appointment track record isn't exactly reassuring. And for what it's worth, I'm not sure that it is the case anymore that if the playing side is going well, other aspects of how the club is run being marginalised to the same extent that it has in the relatively recent past.

So you are thinking along similar lines to me Gonzo79. The close season will undoubtedly crystallise many fans opinions of this board. The ready made excuse of being hamstrung by not having access to the revenue stream of replica strips and merchandising in general will be nigh on impossible to be cited again by King et al. Are the power-brokers truly serious about halting Celtic's dominance in the short term? I remain to be convinced. In my opinion, D'Artagnan makes several valid points re King and the board.

Maybe Laura et al are regretting rushing to move their offices into Ibrox? King's tone when addressing a representative of a significant shareholder said it all in my opinion. The goodwill that the board deservedly garnered amongst the support when they relieved Llambias, Leach and the Easdales of the reins of power is on the wane. How long before it is truly exhausted?

Does anyone feel optimistic about the semi on the back of that performance today? Can Murty really be appointed full-time going forward now given that his record at home is worse than Pedro's? Taken together, the worst home record for a century! Not only that, this was against a team that had played 120 minutes in midweek and yet they looked sharper than us if not for the whole match, certainly for the vast majority of it.

Harsh? Randy 'The Ram' Robinson would've been proud of Jozo's efforts. Watching it live and in real-time at the game, it looked obvious that Simunovic knew what he was doing with a typical piece of Balkan cynicism and that it wasn't a flailing arm. Whether Morelos made a meal of it or not is a moot point. And for the record, I don't think Alfie did. Yet another instance of the victim card being played by a guy who threatened to stop the '86 League Cup final by taking his players off the pitch. And all the more hypocritical of him as he was fond of 'leaving one on' his opponents during his playing days. Reknaw.

Hi All, Just wanted to say hullo and that I look forward to conversing with everyone! Cheers.