Quote from Chris Graham re legal letters from club

[Zappa 0]

I know we don't have as high a wage bill, but we had football debts and one off and start up costs.

 

Most one-off start up costs should have been the personal responsibility of the club's buyers and new owners, not paid for by plundering the club's working capital raised by fans ST cash. That's why the multiple wonga style short term loans arranged by the spivs are under serious scrutiny. It's just a shame it's taken people so long to wake up and start causing a fuss about these crooks.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

In fairness the 50 million reported figure will include the start up costs. I have no doubt 30 odd million will be perfectly understandable costs maybe 35. But its the 5 or more that went on wonga loans spiv bonuses and introduction fees that are a scandal.

[TheTinMan99 0]

That just comes across as personal dislike and supposition rather than him actually banning people as you were implying earlier.

 

Also I don't see that not wanting TBB or TFS sung at Ibrox because of potential sanctions on the club as restriction of freedom of speech.

 

How can I personally dislike him, when I have never met the man? I'm sure he's a decent enough chap in real life, but all I have to go on is my limited interaction with him on the internet. As for my accusation being supposition, I'll explain a little more clearly what actually happened, which I couldn't be bothered doing earlier.

 

A few weeks before the IPO, there was a thread on FF discussing this, and people had varying viewpoints. My stance, as it has been since the day they walked through the door, was that chucky and co weren't to be trusted. This was around about the same time that Mr Graham had his about turn over chucky, and started to give him his support. During this thread, chris popped on with his view on the matter. I then asked him directly, how he could justify his new stance on the Green regime, so close to the IPO, when it could result in hard-working Bears losing money, again. He replied with some sarcastic comment, like he usually does when challenged, and 2 minutes later I was life banned.

 

Maybe it was coincidence, and perhaps he had nothing to do with my banning, but I have on other occasions, seen him react in a similar manner with posters, and then they are mysteriously gone. Before he had his meltdown on RM and was subsequently hooked, this was a regular occurrence. If anything I have said is untrue, he is well within his rights to come on here and defend himself, and call me a liar, just as the club's board have done with him. There is no moral high-ground here for him to stand on.

 

As for certain songs not being a right of free speech, this is where I disagree with a lot of people. The day we start letting governments and minority pressure groups tell us what we can, and cannot say/sing, is a sad one for democracy. As long as it doesn't incite any sort of violence, or invoke a direct prejudice, we should be allowed to say/sing whatever we like. Just because the handwringers are taking over the asylum, it doesn't make it right.

 

Some laws are just wrong, and drafted for all the wrong reasons. I don't particularly agree with the song books of many clubs, including our own, but like I said, who am I, or indeed, who are the government, to decide what is acceptable. An expression of religious/political opinion is a basic human right, whether that be through the medium of song, or written word.

[ranger_syntax 3,767]

The day we start letting governments and minority pressure groups tell us what we can, and cannot say/sing, is a sad one for democracy.

 

Too late for that. People need to figure out how to adapt to the situation.

[bossy 0]

I posted this on another thread. But I think it is relevant to this one given the discussion over the 30-40-50-60-70 million and over the scale and efficacy of the protest.

 

My own experience in the big bad world of business tells me that when you start to alienate your customers, generally, your days are numbered. Of course there are differences here. Usually, when a CEO/CFO is messing up it is the Board that removes him or her. However, in this case, we have a problem with both the CEO, the CFO and the Board. The other difference is that the club have already got their hands on the season ticket money so that limits the power of supporters (think Michael Porter's five forces model).

 

So the real leverage here is not the supporters. The real leverage is how much cash the club has and when/if the club starts to run out of cash. Do we have enough cash to get through the rest of the season? Where will new cash come from and who will provide it? How much cash do we actually need until we become cash-flow positive? Will it come from asset sales (e.g. Ibrox, Auchenhowie, players)? Will the current Board be able to find new investors or will they stump up the cash themselves? Is Admin 2 a realistic prospect?

 

And this is the kind of analysis that fearless journalists like Jackson need to be indulging themselves in because it cuts right to the heart of the matter. The strength of the McColl team resides in their representation of institutions that have put a lot of money into the club. It isn't unusual for investors to have to put in more cash as a business gets back on its feet and a cash call would not shock the institutions. But if they are saying they will not put new money into the club due to the present board and if there is a cash crunch then that becomes an existential problem.

 

Our media love indulging in trivia when it comes to reporting Rangers and the latest stushie about the troops singing 'naughty' songs is a good example of something that is wholly trivial and unimportant. Equally, the stuff about Companies House is not really very important either. So what if the Club have been caught being economical with the truth in the matter? It isn't the first time and it is unlikely to be the last. More importantly, it doesn't really tell us anything about the real state of affairs.

 

So, for Keith Jackson or any other journalist looking in, my advice is to follow the cash. It is an old adage but a true one nevertheless. And that is where the story is.

[Guest stfu]

70% easily at least clapping. Show me where I said 70 million.

 

Utter nonsense as usual.